Latest 4 Cases: In re C.J. (Family Law), In re J.H. (Family Law), In re K.N. (Family Law)

The Law Will Not Save Us

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies reminds us that the rule of law exists in the United States primarily to conceal politics; that is, one cannot rely on having “the law” on one’s side if politics are opposed. Margulies illustrates this point by replacing “the lawyers reviewed the law and decided” with “the high priests studied the entrails and decided”—a substitution that ultimately yields the same results.

Read More

In re C.J.

Docket: 159A19

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Cheri Beasley

Areas of Law: Family 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).

In re J.H.

Docket: 172A19

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Earls

Areas of Law: Family 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.

In re K.N.

Docket: 110A19

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Davis

Areas of Law: Family Law

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.

In re S.D.C.

Docket: 229A19

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Ervin

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 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.