Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her four minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that there were grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the children's cost of care, and dependency. The court then concluded that terminating the parental rights of Mother was in the best interests of the children. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that her parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding it was in the children's best interests to terminate her parental rights. View "In re E.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's ruling denying Plaintiff's motions for relief from the order vacating the registration of her foreign support order, holding that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidence Plaintiff's affidavit under N.C. Gen. Stat. 52C-3-315(b) because the statute's plain terms do not require notarization.Plaintiff initiated an action in Geneva to establish paternity and child support of her two children. The Swiss court entered judgment against Defendant on both counts. The Guilford County Clerk of Court registered the Swiss support order for enforcement. The trial court, however, subsequently vacated the registration of the foreign support order and dismissed the action, finding that no evidence was provided that Defendant had been provided with proper notice of the Swiss proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion for relief and attempted to introduce two affidavits and a transcript. The trial court excluded the first affidavit because it was not notarized and ultimately denied Plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff's affidavit was admissible because it was executed under penalty of perjury as allowed by section 52C-3-315(b). View "Gyger v. Clement" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision affirming the North Carolina Industrial Commission's finding that the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) proceeds that Plaintiff received on behalf of her husband's estate through the settlement of a wrongful death lawsuit were subject to Defendants' subrogation lien under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-10.2, holding that the UIM proceeds recovered from the wrongful death lawsuit may not be used to satisfy Defendants' workers' compensation lien.The decedent, Plaintiff's husband and an employee of Employer, was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident with a third party in South Carolina. The Commission ordered Defendants to pay workers' compensation benefits to Plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed a wrongful death case seeking damages from the third party driver. The parties reached a settlement agreement that included recovery in the form of UIM proceeds. The workers' compensation insurance carrier for Employer subsequently claimed a lien on the UIM proceeds that Plaintiff recovered from the wrongful death settlement. The Commission ordered the distribution of Plaintiff's entire recovery from the South Carolina wrongful death settlement, concluding that Defendants were entitled to subrogation under section 97-10.2. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendants may not satisfy their workers' compensation lien by collecting from Plaintiff's recovery of UIM proceeds in her South Carolina wrongful death settlement. View "Walker v. K&W Cafeterias" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that an internist proffered by Plaintiff to provide standard of care expert testimony against three hospitalists was properly qualified under N.C. R. Evid. 702(b) and that the evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the hospitalists proximately caused Plaintiff's injury.Plaintiff brought this medical malpractice action seeking recovery for the decedent's injury and death. The only claims remaining arose from the hospitalists' alleged medical negligence. During discovery, Plaintiff provided the deposition of Dr. Paul Genecin as expert testimony on the standard of care. The trial court concluded that Dr. Genecin did not qualify as an expert and, because Dr. Genecin was Plaintiff's only standard of care expert, granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Dr. Genecin was competent to testify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Dr. Genecin was qualified to testify to the standard of care, and his testimony sufficiently forecasted proximate cause; and (2) Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of proximate cause, and therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. View "Da Silva v. WakeMed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor son, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.In terminating Mother's parental rights, the trial court found that a likelihood of future neglect existed due to Mother's history of domestic violence and abusive partners, her questionable new relationship, her failure to meaningfully engage in therapy, and her failure to exercise control over her household environment. The trial court also concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was proper based on the ground of dependency and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Mother's parental rights should be terminated on the basis of neglect and on the grounds of dependency. View "In re K.L.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact that were supported by clear and convincing evidence to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis of neglect.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Respondents' parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and determining that it was in the child's best interests that Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights; and (2) as to Mother's appeal, the trial court's order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.O.D." 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 trial court complied with the court of appeals' mandate on remand and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.In 2018, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to her child. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's adjudication of grounds based on neglect but reversed the court's determination that termination was in the child's best interests. Specifically, the court of appeals found that the trial court's dispositional findings of fact did not address the child's likelihood of adoption. On remand, the trial court made multiple new findings of fact regarding the child's likelihood of adoption and again concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly complied with the remand instructions from the court of appeals; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination was in the children's best interests. The trial court entered an order in which it determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). The court also concluded that it was in the children's best interests that both Respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re J.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no merit in Father's argument that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to proceed against him in this matter.The trial court adjudicated the existence of three grounds for termination of Father's parental rights - neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). The court further concluded that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over him for purposes of the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father waived any objection to the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. View "In re W.I.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court denying Mother's petition to terminate the parental rights of Father, holding that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow for meaningful appellate review.Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging neglect, leaving the child in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care, dependence, and abandonment. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that Mother had failed to meet her burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the court erred in failing to enter sufficient findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law to support its dismissal of Mother's termination of parental rights petition. View "In re K.R.C." on Justia Law