225 N.C. App. 541
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- YFS sought to terminate parental rights of the five children; petitions filed May 9, 2011; termination hearing conducted Jan 5–Mar 16, 2012.
- Trial court stated it would consider termination but ordered visitation and reasonable efforts to continue until further order.
- Respondent-mother filed a Motion for Review on Apr 12, 2012 alleging new facts (father’s return) could affect grounds and best interests.
- Trial court denied the motion on Apr 17, 2012, but later entered the TPR order Apr 18, 2012 after denying the motion.
- Appeals focus on whether the trial court abused its discretion, whether grounds exist, and whether termination is in the juveniles’ best interests.
- Court ultimately held the denial of the motion to re-open evidence was based on a misapprehension and reversed/remanded for proper consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to re-open evidence. | YFS contends discretion was properly exercised. | Respondents contend misapprehension prevented proper discretion. | Reversed and remanded for proper consideration. |
| Whether there were valid grounds for termination based on the evidence. | YFS argues grounds exist. | Respondents argue grounds were not properly established. | Remanded; decision left unresolved due to procedural defects. |
| Whether termination was in the juveniles’ best interests. | YFS contends best interests favored termination. | Respondents contend best interests not proven. | Remanded; best-interests determination not properly entered or included in a final order. |
| Whether the TPR order was properly entered and to have terminated parental rights. | YFS asserts legally proper entry of a TPR order. | Respondents contend order not properly entered. | TPR order not entered correctly; reversed and remanded for proper entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.H., 190 N.C. App. 142 (2008) (procedural gaps filled by civil rules; entry requirements for termination orders)
- In re T.P., 197 N.C. App. 723 (2009) (Rule 52; writing and entry of findings and judgment in termination cases)
- In re S.N.H., 177 N.C. App. 82 (2006) (counsel drafting order permissible when judge has already found termination grounds)
- White v. White, 312 N.C. 770 (1985) (abuse of discretion review standards for discretionary rulings)
- State v. Ford, 297 N.C. 28 (1979) (misapprehension of law as ground for reversal)