Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Mother's rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6) and that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to establish that grounds for termination existed under section 7B-1111(a)(7).Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because the trial court failed to make the second required finding under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6), the court erred in finding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on dependency; (2) the trial court's findings of fact affirmatively demonstrated that Mother did not neglect her child by abandonment; and (3) the trial court did not make adequate evidentiary findings to support its ultimate finding that Mother willfully abandoned her child, and the appropriate disposition is to reverse this part of the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings. View "In re K.C.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the termination order and did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests.The trial court adjudicated that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights due to neglect and willfully leaving the children in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal. The trial court further concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the termination action; and (2) the trial court's conclusion that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re K.S.D-F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.Father successfully appealed an earlier order that the court of appeals vacated and remanded. On remand, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1). Before the Supreme Court, Father argued that the trial court failed to hear new evidence on remand and, therefore, could not make appropriate findings of fact to justify the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because, on remand, Father stipulated that the trial court could proceed without receiving new evidence, the stipulation was binding and prevented Father from raising the trial court's failure to hear new evidence as a reason for the Supreme Court to reverse its order; and (2) the trial court's findings reflected reasoned decision-making and supported its conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re R.L.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to each of their six minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court found the existence of the ground of neglect and the ground of willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from the parents' care. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination orders, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that grounds for termination of both Parents' parental rights were shown to exist by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the best interests of all six children. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that termination was proper in this case.After a hearing, the trial court entered a dispositional order concluding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the children's removal from the family home. The court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination orders had ample record support and that those findings supported the court's determinations that Mother's parental rights in her two children were subject to termination on at least one of the grounds delineated in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re G.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his daughter, holding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father in light of Mother's failure to effect proper service by publication pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1).Mother filed a petition seeking to terminate Father's parental rights in his child. Mother filed a motion seeking leave to serve Father by publication, which was granted. Mother obtained the running of a notice of service by publication in the Hendersonville Lightning informing Father that a termination of parental rights proceeding had been initiated against him. Father did not file a pleading in response and failed to appear for the termination hearing. The trial court subsequently terminated Father's parental rights. Father sought relief from the trial court's termination order. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that Mother failed properly serve Father by publication in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1), and therefore, the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over Father. View "In re S.E.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1).After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that both grounds alleged in the motion to terminate parental rights - neglect and failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home - and concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re A.S.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests.The trial court terminated Parents' parental rights based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights; and (2) the trial court properly considered the statutory facts set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) when determining the children's best interests. View "In re A.H.F.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child in this private termination action, holding that termination was proper on willful abandonment grounds.Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights, determining that both grounds alleged in the termination petition existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights at the adjudicatory stage in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings that were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that Father's conduct met the statutory criterion of willful abandonment. View "In re N.M.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and were sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions of law; (3) the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the ground that Father left the child in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal; and (4) sufficient grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re A.J.P." on Justia Law