| In re A.M.L. |
| Docket: 69A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Barringer Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her five minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court's findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; (2) the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2); and (3) where Mother did not challenge the court's determination that termination was in the children's best interests, the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights in her five children. |
| |
| In re A.R.P. |
| Docket: 308A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 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 child, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's no-merit brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless. Petitioner, the child's biological mother, filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7), alleging that Father had not seen the child in over two years and had not paid child support for that same period of time. The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights for abandonment. On appeal, counsel for Father filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court 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.T.J. |
| Docket: 230A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 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 properly adjudicated at least one ground for termination. The Rowan County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving her child in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to his removal. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that DSS had proven both alleged grounds for termination and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated based on neglect. |
| |
| In re C.R.L. |
| Docket: 196A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 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 Father missed his opportunity to remedy a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1109. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court violated section 7B-1109 by holding the termination hearing more than ninety days after the Department of Social Services filed its petitions to terminate his parental rights, thus committing reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order, holding that the issue raised by Father on appeal should have been addressed by filing a petition for writ of mandamus while the termination petitions were still pending. |
| |
| In re G.G.M. |
| Dockets: 248A20, 249A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on willful abandonment and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court's findings of fact supported its ultimately finding and conclusion that Father willfully abandoned the children, and therefore, the court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7); and (2) the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re H.A.J. |
| Docket: 127A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court eliminating reunification as a permanent plan and terminating Mother's parental rights in her two children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children due to neglect and concluding 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 (1) did not err by failing to grant Mother a continuance of a permanency planning review hearing; (2) properly concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (3) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. |
| |
| In re I.R.M.B. |
| Docket: 91A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Barringer Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father to his daughter, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supported the court's conclusion to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to his children pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7) and that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that those findings were sufficient to support the court's conclusion that Father willfully abandoned his daughter pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). |
| |
| In re J.S. |
| Docket: 186A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination and concluding that it was in the best interests of Father's three children to terminate Father's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in all three children. Orange County Department of Social Services alleged as grounds for termination neglect and willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress. The trial court adjudicated the existence of both grounds alleged in the motions and terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Father neglected his children and that there was a likelihood of the repetition of neglect, thus supporting the termination of Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). |
| |
| In re L.N.G. |
| Docket: 252A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 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 trial court properly adjudicated the existence of at least one ground for termination. DHHS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children, alleging the grounds of neglect contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The trial court found that grounds existed for termination pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) but dismissed the third ground alleged under section 7B-1111(a)(3). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that Mother's parental rights could be terminated pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2). |
| |
| In re M.C.T.B. |
| Docket: 275A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the issues identified by Mother's counsel in a no-merit brief as arguably supporting an appeal were meritless. Petitioner, Mother's material grandmother, filed a private action to terminate Mother's parental rights alleging grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). After a hearing, the trial court terminated that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights due to neglect and her failure to pay a reasonable portion of costs of the child's care and that it was in the best interests of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. |
| |
| In re R.D.M. |
| Docket: 193A20 Opinion Date: March 19, 2021 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of the mother of the four minor children in this case and the father of the two youngest children, holding that the order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights due to neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress and Father's parental rights due to neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's case. Both parents appealed. Counsel for the parents filed no-merit briefs on their clients' behalf explaining why the issues arguably supporting an appeal lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| |
