Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief lacked merit. After hearings, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal. Mother appealed. Counsel for Mother then filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Father's brief lacked merit.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. Father appealed. Counsel for Father then filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.B.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal. Mother appealed, and counsel for Mother filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the order was supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re Z.O.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the decision of the court of appeals determining that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss charges of felonious obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the second of two felonious obstruction of justice charges.Defendant was charged with accessory after the fact to sexual activity to a substitute parent and two counts of felonious obstruction of justice, the second of which alleged that Defendant, the victim's mother, denied the sheriff's department and child protective services access to the victim. The jury convicted Defendant as charged. The court of appeals reversed the second of Defendant's felonious obstruction of justice convictions and Defendant's accessory after the fact conviction. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the record contained sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for felonious obstruction of justice based upon a denial of access to the victim; and (2) the court of appeals properly concluded that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent. View "State v. Ditenhafer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) breached a 1998 agreement between the parties, holding that the court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the State Defendants breached a settlement agreement in two respects.Centuries after the disappearance of two ships Plaintiff, a marine research and recovery corporation, received permits from DNCR to search for the ships. After discovering one of the ships, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with DNCR in 1998 agreeing to forgo certain rights in exchange for other rights. Plaintiff later alleged that DNCR breached the agreement in several ways, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2013. Plaintiff later sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the State Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the State Defendants for breach of the 1998 agreement; but (2) the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claims for breach of the 2013 settlement agreement stemming from DNCR's alleged violations of Plaintiff's media and promotional rights and from DNCR's non-renewal of Plaintiff's permit to search for the second ship. View "Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the issues raised by counsel in Mother's brief were meritless.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and committing a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to another child of the parent. After Mother gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for Mother filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was based on clear and convincing evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination of parental rights. View "In re T.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court declining to terminate Father's parental rights to his children based on its determination that termination would not be in the best interests of the children, holding that the trial court's ruling was within its discretion.Bethany Christian Services filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to his two children on the grounds of neglect, failure too legitimate, and dependency. The court subsequently entered an order declaring Father to be the children's father. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order concluding that although a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights, termination was not in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was not in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. View "In re A.U.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter C.M.C., holding that the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders which Mother sought to challenge before this Court.After a hearing, the trial court announced that the parental rights of Mother should be terminated. Adjudication and disposition orders signed by Judge Monica Leslie, rather than the trial court, were filed. Judge Leslie subsequently vacated the adjudication and dispositional orders that she had signed, and the trial court entered a separate dispositional order in which it determined that the termination of Mother's rights was in the child's best interests. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by entering the challenged termination orders on the grounds that Judge Leslie lacked the authority to vacate the earlier termination orders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Leslie did not err by vacating the initial set of termination orders that she signed in this case, and the trial court did not err by entering the set of termination orders that Mother sought to challenge before the Supreme Court. View "In re C.M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that Angela C. Foster be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(3) and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-376.The Judicial Standards Commission counsel filed a statement of charges against District Court Judge Angela C. Foster (Respondent) alleging that she had engaged in conduct inappropriate to her judicial office. Based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission recommended that the Supreme Court censure Respondent. The Supreme Court concluded that the Commission's recommended censure was appropriate and ordered that Respondent be censured. View "In re Foster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of taking indecent liberties with a child and determining that the State presented sufficient evidence of the N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.16(d)(15) aggravating factor to submit that aggravating factor to the jury, holding that there was not sufficient evidence to submit the aggravating factor to the jury.The aggravating factor at issue on appeal was that Defendant "took advantage of a position of trust or confidence, including a domestic relationship, to commit the offense[s]." The court of appeals determined that there was a permissible inference that because of the victim's extreme reliance on her mother, the victim, who was three years old at the time of the offense, would trust and rely on Defendant, her mother's boyfriend, even though the victim only interacted with Defendant in person on two occasions. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State's evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the trust or confidence aggravating factor because the State failed to show that the relationship between the victim and Defendant was conducive to her reliance on him. View "State v. Helms" on Justia Law