| In re N.K. |
| Docket: 54A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law |
| The Supreme Court remanded this termination of parental rights case to the trial court, holding that while the trial court correctly applied North Carolina law in terminating Mother's parental rights, the case should be remanded for further proceedings intended to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963. The trial court found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an inquiry into the issue of whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for Mother; (2) the trial court did not err in determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests; and (3) this case should be remanded for further proceedings concerning whether the notice of ICWA were complied with and whether the child was an Indian child for purposes of ICWA. |
| |
| In re A.L.S. |
| Docket: 153A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed orders entered by the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. The trial court entered orders terminating Mother's parental rights in the children on the basis of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The court further determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court's findings of fact was harmless; and (2) the trial court did not err by determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for dependency. |
| |
| In re A.P. |
| Docket: 208A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their minor child, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless. The trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights in the child on grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (3). The court further determined that it was in the child's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Parents each filed timely notice of appeal. Counsel for Parents jointly filed a no-merit brief on behalf of their clients. The Supreme Court reviewed the issues identified by counsel and affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. |
| |
| In re B.E. |
| Docket: 11A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their two minor children, Justin and Billy, holding that the trial court did not err. The trial court entered an order adjudicating the existence of grounds to terminate Parents' parental rights for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from the home, and dependency. The court then concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights was in the best interests of the two children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights for neglect; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in Billy's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re C.A.H. |
| Docket: 188A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the grounds of willful failure to pay for the cost of care of the child and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on Father's willful failure to pay for the child's care and Father's willful abandonment of the child. The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a). |
| |
| In re D.M. |
| Docket: 339A19 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. The trial court entered an adjudication order determining that parents' 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 termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) determining that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect; and (2) finding that Mother’s parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). |
| |
| In re J.S. |
| Docket: 92A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in a no-merit brief did not entitle Mother to relief. The trial court found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7), and (9) and that termination of Mother's parental rights to her three children was in the children's best interests. Mother appealed, and her appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding and concluding that a basis for termination of Mother's parental rights existed; and (2) the trial court's order was based on proper legal grounds. |
| |
| In re K.D.C. |
| Docket: 27A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court erred in finding 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 children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children. The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. On appeal, Mother challenged two of the trial court's findings of fact as being unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) portions of the trial court's findings were not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. |
| |
| In re K.P.-S.T. |
| Docket: 451A19 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights in his children on the basis of a determination that his parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the removal of the children from the home. The court further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding the existence of at least one ground for terminating Father's parental rights and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. |
| |
| In re Q.B. |
| Docket: 59A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Davis Areas of Law: Family 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 did not abuse its discretion in failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) to assist Mother in her termination of parental rights proceeding. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was warranted on the grounds of neglect and dependency. The court also concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into whether Mother should be appointed a GAL to assist her during the termination proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the need to appoint a GAL for Mother. |
| |
| In re S.D.H. |
| Docket: 231A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's orders terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless. As to Mother and Father, the trial court concluded that four statutory grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6), and that it was in the children's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Father appealed from the termination orders. Father's counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. After reviewing the issues identified by counsel in the no-merit brief the Supreme Court held that the trial court's orders were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and were based on proper legal grounds. |
| |
| In re T.N.C. |
| Docket: 88A20 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court properly decided to terminate the parental rights of Mother. On appeal, Mother asserted that her counsel's cross-examination of a witness for the Wilkes County Department of Social Services during the termination hearing and Mother's counsel's closing arguments constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother's counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and therefore, there was no prejudice to her in the hearing proceedings. |
| |
| State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Stein |
| Dockets: 271A18, 401A18 Opinion Date: December 11, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part orders entered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission addressing applications filed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, holding that the Commission erred by rejecting an equitable sharing proposal without properly considering and making findings and conclusions concerning "all other material facts," as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 62-133(d). Various interveners representing the utilities' consumers appealed the Commission's orders, challenging the lawfulness of the Commission's decisions concerning the extent to which the utilities were entitled to reflect costs associated with the storage and disposal of ash resulting from electricity production in coal-fired electric generating units in the cost of service used to set the utilities' North Carolina retail rates. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the Commission (1) did not err by allowing the inclusion of a majority to the utilities' coal ash costs in the cost of service used for establishing North Carolina retail rates and in increasing Duke Energy Carolinas' residential basic facilities charge; but (2) erred in rejecting an equitable sharing proposal without making the statutorily required findings and conclusions. |
| |
