North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

  G.S. § 122C-268(f) says that a “respondent’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses may not be denied.” This does not constitute a mandate to the trial court, so respondent’s attorney had the responsibility to object to alleged hearsay testimony ...

Even though there is no current prospect for the adoption of “Caleb,” since this is a private action in which the petitioner-mother has full custody, the termination of the respondent-father’s parental rights will not result in Caleb becoming a ward ...

The district court’s undisputed findings of fact demonstrate that respondent was convicted for sexually abusing children and denied responsibility for those convictions; had persistent and serious mental health issues that affected his ability to parent “Nick”; and suffers from serious ...

  Given “Zavion’s” anxiety at the thought of living with the respondent-father, among other factors, the trial court could find that reunification with respondent could not occur within a reasonable time. We affirm the trial court’s order awarding guardianship to ...

The respondent-father cannot use his incarceration—the result of his own actions—as an excuse for his failure to make progress toward reunification with his daughter, “Sarah.” In any event, he also failed to make progress after his release. We affirm the ...

  Although most of the sexual allegations in this case involved “Steve’s” older siblings, a social worker testified that all three siblings slept in the same bedroom. Given Steve’s young age (two), his inability to talk, and his close proximity ...

Despite being awarded visitation in a 2016 custody order, the respondent-father had no contact with and provided no support for his daughter, “Kathy,” from 2014 until after the petitioner-mother filed a petition to terminate his parental rights on 11 September ...

During an ex parte custody hearing and in a subsequent written order, the trial court declined to require the respondent-father to complete a domestic violence program before he could exercise supervised visitation with the parties’ child. Thus, despite respondent’s mistaken ...

The trial court’s findings establish that the respondent-mother has a history of lying to DSS about the status of her relationships, that she did not acknowledge her past domestic violence in court until she testified at the termination hearing, that ...

Even though the trial court did not specify the dates of the three-month period during which the respondent-father maintained sobriety, it is evident from the trial court’s findings that it evaluated respondent’s history of alcohol abuse and his behavior over ...