Summary
The North Carolina Supreme Court affirms an order terminating the respondent-father’s parental rights to J.M.J.-J. The Court holds that the trial court’s findings were sufficiently supported and that grounds for termination based on neglect were established under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), making review of the abandonment ground unnecessary.
Holdings
- Collateral estoppel barred respondent from relitigating facts established in the prior adjudication and disposition orders because he did not appeal those orders.
- The trial court could take judicial notice of findings of fact in prior orders and of its own proceedings, even when the prior findings were based on a lower evidentiary standard, and could use that information when evaluating the termination evidence.
- The evidence supported the material findings that respondent had a substance-abuse problem, refused requested drug screens and further assessment, failed to complete his case plan, and did not pursue visitation; the unsupported portions concerning the reason for one refusal and nine additional alleged refusals were disregarded.
- The trial court properly concluded that neglect existed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), and that ground alone supported termination of respondent's parental rights.
Questions Presented
- Whether challenged findings of fact supporting termination of parental rights were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
- Whether collateral estoppel barred respondent from relitigating facts established in the prior adjudication and disposition orders.
- Whether the trial court properly took judicial notice of findings in prior orders and of its own proceedings.
- Whether the findings supported termination of respondent's parental rights for neglect under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (15)
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 110-11, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252-53 (1984)(followed)
- In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 404, 293 S.E.2d 127, 133 (1982)(followed)
- In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 842-43, 788 S.E.2d 162, 167-68 (2016)(followed)
- In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 247, 485 S.E.2d 612, 614-15 (1997)(followed)
- In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 713-15, 319 S.E.2d 227, 231-32 (1984)(followed)
- In re Z.V.A., 373 N.C. 207, 212, 835 S.E.2d 425, 430 (2019)(followed)
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407, 409-10, 413, 831 S.E.2d 54, 58, 60, 62 (2019)(followed)
- King v. Grindstaff, 284 N.C. 348, 356, 200 S.E.2d 799, 805 (1973)(followed)
- Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell, 301 N.C. 689, 694, 273 S.E.2d 281, 285 (1981)(followed)
- Scott v. Scott, 157 N.C. App. 382, 388, 579 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…