The published decision reversed every termination ground. Findings did not support neglect; the children had not been removed in the manner required for the reasonable-progress ground; and no case plan had been imposed. A judge’s memory and independent investigation were not evidence and compromised the neutral decisionmaker role.
The published opinion affirmed. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported willful abandonment, and the best-interest findings addressed adoption, permanence, the children’s bond with the aunt, and their lack of a significant bond with the mother. The guardian ad litem’s different recommendation was relevant but not controlling.
The Court of Appeals remanded for additional findings. A substantial change in circumstances must affect the child, and a relocation decision requires findings that permit review of advantages, parental motives, compliance with visitation, and the practicality of preserving the other parent’s relationship. The order supplied a visitation schedule but did not explain the claimed educational benefit, the child’s relationship with the stepfather, or
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Past neglect may inform whether future neglect is likely, but it does not end the inquiry when the children are not in the parent’s custody. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported positive changes and the district court’s determination that repetition of neglect was not sufficiently likely. An isolated positive THC test did not compel a different result in light of the broader record.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The prior recusal applied to the judge who had entered it and did not bar a different judge from hearing the remanded matter. Unchallenged and supported findings showed a living environment injurious to the children’s welfare, including repeated exposure to potentially harmful situations and failure to correct the conduct. Those findings supported adjudication of all three children as neglected.
The published opinion remanded for the trial court to determine whether counsel performed deficiently and, if so, whether those deficiencies deprived the mother of a fair hearing. The existing appellate record did not permit the Court of Appeals to resolve the fact-sensitive ineffective-assistance questions itself. A separate concurrence elaborated on the standards the trial court should use on remand.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a Domestic Violence Protective Order entered against a father who grabbed his seven-year-old son by the neck and hip and carried him to his car seat, causing the child to feel dizzy, experience difficulty breathing, and turn red in the face. A 2–1 majority held that competent evidence supported the finding of “intentionally causing bodily injury” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-1(a)(1) even absent a visible mark. The court also held that minor children have standing to seek DVPOs against parents through a Guardian ad litem. Judge Wood dissented, arguing that routine parental discipline without lasting injury cannot constitute domestic violence.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated an order ceasing a mother’s reunification efforts because the trial court entered that order at a review hearing rather than a permanency planning hearing, holding that N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(d1) does not authorize courts to cease reunification at review hearings—that authority belongs exclusively to permanency planning hearings under § 7B-906.2(b)—while also cautioning that missed 30-day permanency planning hearing deadlines must be challenged by writ of mandamus, not appeal.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed termination of parental rights on neglect grounds as to three children removed after a nighttime car accident left two infants with traumatic brain injuries, holding that the mother’s extensive CPS history, prior criminal conviction for a child’s death, psychological diagnosis showing parenting incapacity, and continued unsafe conduct during supervised visits established the likelihood of future neglect required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1).
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a custody modification that maintained primary physical custody with the mother during the school year and equal summer custody, holding that a trial court has broad discretion to award primary custody to one fit parent without finding the other unfit, and that findings linking communication difficulties and the children’s need for a stable school-year routine rationally supported the arrangement.