Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Father to his child on the basis of neglect, holding that the findings in the court's order were insufficient to support a determination that Father had neglected the child.After the trial court entered an order adjudicating the child to be a neglected and dependent juvenile Father was ordered to comply with a case plan requiring Father to take a number of steps in order to reunify with his children. The trial court later changed the primary permanency plan to adoption with a concurrent secondary permanent plan of reunification. The court subsequently found that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis that Father had neglected the child and that such neglect was likely to recur of the child was returned to Father. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the court's ultimate determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect. View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's permanency planning order and order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights.After the trial court adjudicated the four children to be abused and neglected the trial court required Mother to take a number of steps in order to reunify with her children. After a permanent planning hearing the court found that Mother failed to comply with some of the terms of her case plan and ordered the cessation of reunification efforts. The court then terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that ceasing reunification was in the best interests of the children; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re J.H." 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 did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.The trial court found that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care, and willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirm, holding that the child's potential placement with a relative was not a factor that the trial court was required to consider or make findings about during the dispositional phase of the termination of parental rights proceeding. View "In re S.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights.In terminating Mother's parental rights the trial court concluded that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on grounds of neglect, willfully leaving her daughter in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal, and abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings fully supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re C.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction of felony larceny, holding that insufficient evidence existed to support the larceny charge.After two remands by the Supreme Court, the court of appeals vacated Defendant's larceny conviction, holding that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial and that the State's evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on the larceny charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that this Court need not resolve whether a fatal variance existed because the court of appeals correctly held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the larceny charge. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their minor child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct an inquiry into Mother's competency; (2) clear, cogent and competent evidence supported the district court's findings of fact, which led to the court's conclusion of law that Father's parental rights should be terminated based upon his neglect of the child; and (3) Parents failed to show that the district court had a duty to recuse itself from hearing the termination case. View "In re Z.V.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their two minor children, holding that the district court made sufficient findings of fact, based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence, to support the court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and that termination was in the children's best interests.The district court found that the evidence established facts sufficient to support the termination of Parents' parental rights based on the failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal at the time of the termination hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated based upon her failure to make reasonable progress; and (2) the district court's orders were supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re I.G.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.The district court terminated the parental rights of both Mother and the children's father, finding that the evidence supported the termination of the parents' parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother's challenges to the court's findings of fact were unavailing; (2) the district court did not err by concluding that, under the circumstances, a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that it would be in one of the children's best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re A.R.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court arrested judgment with respect to Defendant's conviction for committing a sex offense against a child and vacated the trial court's judgment, holding that the indictment underlying Defendant's conviction for committing a sex offense against a child was fatally defective.Defendant was convicted of committing a sex offense against a child and taking indecent liberties with a child in 2013. The jury found as an aggravating factor that Defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense. The trial court consolidated Defendant's convictions for judgment and determined that Defendant should be sentenced in the aggravated range. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's sentence, determining that the trial court had failed to hold the statutorily required jury instruction conference before submitting the aggravating factor to the jury. The Supreme Court vacated and reversed in part the court of appeals' decision, holding (1) the trial court's failure to conduct the jury instruction conference prior to submission of the existence of the relevant statutory aggravating factor to the jury did not materially prejudice Defendant; and (2) Defendant's indictment for committing a sex offense against a child was fatally defective. The court remanded for resentencing based upon Defendant's conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

In this case involving a disputed property line the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim and granting summary judgment and other relief to Defendant, holding that, under the circumstances, the intent of the parties concerning the boundary line was a question of fact to be determined by a jury.Only by reference to a recorded map, Defendant took ownership of the contested property. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and to quiet title. Defendants answered claiming the disputed land to be within its boundary. The conveyances at issue only referenced lot numbers on a recorded map, and the disputed property line as shown on the map was ambiguous. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the intent of the parties as shown on the map is ambiguous, a jury issue existed, and therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted. View "Daughtridge v. Tanager Land, LLC" on Justia Law