Joe, Joey, Joe-Baby, Sexist: Where’s Your Imposter Syndrome?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman responds to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden for using the academic title she earned. Professor Grossman dissects the op-ed, penned by a retired lecturer at Northwestern University, and explains the deep and pervasive sexism behind it.

Read More

In re A.K.O.

Docket: 68A20

Opinion Date: December 11, 2020

Judge: Paul M. Newby

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, Alyson, age nine, and Adam, age seventeen, holding that remand was required to reconsider Adam's age, reweigh his request to keep Parents' parental rights intact, and to reevaluate guardianship for Adam as an alternative to termination of parental rights. The trial court determined grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights based on the grounds alleged in the petitions and concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Parents appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that termination of their rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the order terminating Parents' parental rights to Adam and remanded to the trial court to reconsider guardianship as a dispositional alternative and to give proper weight to Adam's age, his lack of consent to adoption, and his bond with his parents. The Court affirmed the trial court's orders as to Alyson, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' parental rights was in Alyson's best interests.

In re A.M.O.

Docket: 67A20

Opinion Date: December 11, 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 minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. Based on findings of fact made by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the trial court adjudicated several statutory grounds for termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and (7) and concluded that it was in the child's best interests for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred at disposition by concluding that it was in the child's best interests that her rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental right.

In re R.L.D.

Docket: 122A20

Opinion Date: December 11, 2020

Judge: Robin E. Hudson

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, 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 Mother's parental rights. The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The court further concluded 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 did not err by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.

In re Z.O.G.-I

Docket: 41A20

Opinion Date: December 11, 2020

Judge: Paul M. Newby

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court vacated the dispositional portion of the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child and remanded for entry of a new dispositional order, holding that the trial court misapprehended the legal effects of the termination. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's adjudication of grounds under section 7B-1111(a)(2) but vacated the dispositional portion of the trial court's order, holding that the trial court's decision to order both that Father's parental rights be terminated and that Father be allowed to continue co-parenting the child suggested a misapprehension of the legal effects attendant to terminating parental rights. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new dispositional determination.