| In re K.H. |
| Docket: 255A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative 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). |
| |
| In re A.H.F.S. |
| Docket: 369A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The trial court terminated Parents' parental rights based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights; and (2) the trial court properly considered the statutory facts set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) when determining the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re A.J.P. |
| Docket: 452A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and were sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions of law; (3) the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the ground that Father left the child in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal; and (4) sufficient grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). |
| |
| In re A.S.M.R. |
| Docket: 379A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Davis Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their two children, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) a respondent's failure to appeal an adjudication order generally serves to preclude a subsequent collateral attack on that order during an appeal of a later order terminating the respondent's parental rights; and (2) the trial court's failure to make explicit findings establishing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) did not constitute error because the record unambiguously demonstrated that the jurisdictional perquisites in the UCCJEA were satisfied. |
| |
| In re A.S.T. |
| Docket: 18A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1). After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that both grounds alleged in the motion to terminate parental rights - neglect and failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home - and concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re C.B. |
| Docket: 354A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family 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. |
| |
| In re D.L.A.D. |
| Docket: 123A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| 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. |
| |
| In re E.C. |
| Docket: 413A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family 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. |
| |
| In re G.L. |
| Docket: 191A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that termination was proper in this case. After a hearing, the trial court entered a dispositional order concluding that Mother's 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 it was in the children's best interests for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination orders had ample record support and that those findings supported the court's determinations that Mother's parental rights in her two children were subject to termination on at least one of the grounds delineated in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re K.C.T. |
| Docket: 461A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Mother's rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6) and that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to establish that grounds for termination existed under section 7B-1111(a)(7). Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because the trial court failed to make the second required finding under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6), the court erred in finding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on dependency; (2) the trial court's findings of fact affirmatively demonstrated that Mother did not neglect her child by abandonment; and (3) the trial court did not make adequate evidentiary findings to support its ultimate finding that Mother willfully abandoned her child, and the appropriate disposition is to reverse this part of the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings. |
| |
| In re K.S.D-F. |
| Docket: 491A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the termination order and did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests. The trial court adjudicated that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights due to neglect and willfully leaving the children in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal. The trial court further concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the termination action; and (2) the trial court's conclusion that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. |
| |
| In re N.M.H. |
| Docket: 474A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child in this private termination action, holding that termination was proper on willful abandonment grounds. Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights, determining that both grounds alleged in the termination petition existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights at the adjudicatory stage in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings that were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that Father's conduct met the statutory criterion of willful abandonment. |
| |
| In re O.W.D.A. |
| Docket: 397A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family 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. |
| |
| In re R.L.O. |
| Docket: 87A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Father successfully appealed an earlier order that the court of appeals vacated and remanded. On remand, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1). Before the Supreme Court, Father argued that the trial court failed to hear new evidence on remand and, therefore, could not make appropriate findings of fact to justify the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because, on remand, Father stipulated that the trial court could proceed without receiving new evidence, the stipulation was binding and prevented Father from raising the trial court's failure to hear new evidence as a reason for the Supreme Court to reverse its order; and (2) the trial court's findings reflected reasoned decision-making and supported its conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re S.E.T. |
| Docket: 10A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his daughter, holding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father in light of Mother's failure to effect proper service by publication pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1). Mother filed a petition seeking to terminate Father's parental rights in his child. Mother filed a motion seeking leave to serve Father by publication, which was granted. Mother obtained the running of a notice of service by publication in the Hendersonville Lightning informing Father that a termination of parental rights proceeding had been initiated against him. Father did not file a pleading in response and failed to appear for the termination hearing. The trial court subsequently terminated Father's parental rights. Father sought relief from the trial court's termination order. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that Mother failed properly serve Father by publication in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1), and therefore, the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over Father. |
| |
| In re S.M. |
| Docket: 462A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to each of their six minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court found the existence of the ground of neglect and the ground of willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from the parents' care. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination orders, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that grounds for termination of both Parents' parental rights were shown to exist by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the best interests of all six children. |
| |
| In re X.P.W. |
| Docket: 39A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family 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. |
| |
