Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that grounds existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect under section 7B-1111(a)(1) and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re D.L.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the unchallenged findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights and that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children under section 7B-1111(a)(2) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re E.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's conclusion that one statutory ground for termination existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Father's parental rights.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the child's best interest that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re O.W.D.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five minor children, including Connor, the oldest child, holding that the trial court's conclusion that it was in Connor's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred in its dispositional decision by determination by determining that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of Connor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court made the necessary findings of fact as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and that the court's findings supported its conclusion that termination was in Connor's best interests. View "In re C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, determining that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights due to neglect and abandonment. The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. View "In re X.P.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that a parent and child must be living apart from each other for more than twelve months prior to the filing of a motion to terminate parental rights in order for grounds for termination to exist under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2).Less than eight months after the child in this case was moved to a different foster home apart from Mother, the Cabarrus County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. The trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), (3), and (6). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the child was not left in foster care outside the home for more than twelve months the termination of Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2) cannot be sustained; and (2) the trial court made insufficient findings of fact to support its conclusions of law that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights existed under sections 7B-1111(a)(3) and (6). View "In re K.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, holding that the trial court's findings of fact and the evidence supported the conclusion that Mother willfully abandoned her son within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Specifically, the Supreme Court held that because the evidence and the court's findings showed that Mother undertook no action to express love, affection, and parental concern for the child during the relevant six-month period, the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(7) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re L.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction, holding that the rationale underlying State v. Harbison, 337 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. 1985) applies equally when defense counsel impliedly - rather than expressly - admits the defendant's guilt to a charged offense. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault on a female. The trial court entered judgment on one count of habitual misdemeanor assault and sentenced Defendant to a term of fifteen to twenty-seven months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his defense counsel improperly conceded his guilt to the assault on a female charge during closing arguments. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that defense counsel impliedly conceded Defendant's guilty on the offense of assault on a female. The Court remanded the case for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether Defendant knowingly consented in advance to his attorney's admission of guilt. View "State v. McAllister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of willful abandonment, holding that Petitioners failed to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Father willfully abandoned his child.The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and willful abandonment. The court of appeals affirmed the termination order on the willful abandonment ground. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioners failed to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Father willfully abandoned his child; and (2) Petitioners failed to prove that any other ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re E.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Mother's brief were without merit.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to her child, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6) and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order of the trial court was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re Z.K." on Justia Law