Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Stroud
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal from trial verdict
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court reversed termination of parental rights, finding trial court's findings of neglect and lack of progress were unsupported by evidence and that abandonment was improperly considered as it was not alleged in the petition.
Excerpt
<bold>1. Termination of Parental Rights — neglect — incarcerated father —</bold> <bold>findings not supported by evidence</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of a father on the ground of neglect where there was undisputed evidence that he was consistent in writing to the children, although he was on probation and then incarcerated, and respondent married the mother, which legitimated the child born out of wedlock. Significant portions of the court's findings were wholly unsupported by the evidence presented during the termination proceeding.</block_quote> <bold>2. Termination of Parental Rights — lack of progress — incarcerated</bold> <bold>father — findings not sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's findings in a termination of parental rights proceeding were not sufficient to support the conclusion that<page_number>Page 215</page_number> respondent had left the children in foster care for more than twelve months without making progress. The trial court failed to make any findings of fact specifically related to respondent's progress after the children were removed from the home.</block_quote> <bold>3. Termination of Parental Rights — abandonment — not alleged in</bold> <bold>petition</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by terminating parental rights based on abandonment where DSS did not allege abandonment in the petition. Respondent did not have notice that abandonment would be at issue.</block_quote>
Similar Rulings
In this permanent custody case, the trial court did not plainly err in considering the testimony and report of the guardian ad litem where the guardian ad litem's lack of contact with mother was attributable to mother's own conduct as opposed to any deficiency on the part of the guardian ad litem. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's request on the day of trial for a continuance to work toward completing her case plan objectives after the matter had already been continued four times. Additionally, the manifest weight of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that awarding permanent custody to Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS") is in the child's best interest. Despite father's more recent engagement in the case, father did not demonstrate he had ameliorated the concerns that led to the child's removal. Judgment affirmed.
Because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court's findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4) and (10), the court's determination that the children could not, or should not, be placed with the mother or father within a reasonable time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT – INDUCING PANIC – EVIDENCE: The juvenile court erred in finding the juvenile delinquent of telecommunications harassment where the state failed to prove that the juvenile's purpose in making the telecommunication was to abuse, threaten, or harass, and where the state failed to prove the existence of another person as a recipient of the telecommunication. Where a delinquency adjudication for telecommunications harassment served as the only predicate offense for a charge of inducing panic, and the telecommunications harassment adjudication is reversed on appeal, the adjudication for inducing panic must also be reversed, because a predicate offense is an essential element of inducing panic.
Termination of parental rights whether the trial court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support an adjudication of grounds under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(5) and (9).
<bold>1. Termination of Parental Rights — guardian ad</bold> <bold>litem for parent — incapacity to provide care not</bold> <bold>alleged</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by not appointing a guardian ad litem under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>7B-1111</cross_reference>(a)(6) for the parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding where incapability to provide proper care for the children was not alleged and respondent did not request a guardian ad litem.</block_quote><page_number>Page 67</page_number> <bold>2. Mental Illness — termination of parental rights</bold> <bold>— Rule 17 — guardian for parent — not</bold> <bold>appointed</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not appointing a guardian ad litem under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 17 for the parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding.</block_quote> <bold>3. Constitutional Law — effective</bold> <bold>assistance of counsel — termination of parental</bold> <bold>rights</bold> <block_quote> A termination of parental rights respondent was not denied effective assistance of counsel when her attorney informed the court that she did not need the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Respondent's attorney was familiar with respondent and vigorously and zealously represented her; moreover, there was overwhelming evidence supporting termination of respondent's parental rights.</block_quote> <bold>4. Termination of Parental Rights — assignment of</bold> <bold>error — only one of three grounds for termination</bold> <block_quote> Only one of the grounds in N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>7B-1111</cross_reference>(a) is necessary to terminate parental rights. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support one of those grounds in this case was not addressed where respondent did not assign error to the other two grounds cited by the trial court.</block_quote> <bold>5. Termination of Parental Rights — relative</bold> <bol
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.