In re K.C., 386 N.C. 690

The case involves the removal of a minor child, K.C., from her father, following concerns about the mother's substance abuse and the father's criminal history and recent arrest for assault.
The Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) initially placed K.C. with her father after concerns about her mother, but later recommended placement with paternal relatives following the father's arrest.
The trial court ordered temporary placement with the paternal aunt and uncle, finding that both parents acted inconsistently with their constitutional rights, though no constitutional argument was raised at trial.
On appeal, the father challenged the constitutionality of depriving him, a non-offending parent, of custody without a specific finding of unfitness or neglect.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the issue was preserved so long as the parent opposed the removal, but the Supreme Court granted further review to address both preservation of constitutional arguments and substantive issues.
The main question for the Supreme Court was whether the constitutional argument was properly preserved for appeal if it was not explicitly raised at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether removal of child from non-offending parent, without explicit finding of unfitness, violates constitutional rights	DSS: Constitutional issue not preserved as it wasn’t argued at trial; reliance on statutory findings is sufficient	Father: Opposed removal; trial court made constitutional findings, so issue is properly before appellate court	Not preserved; constitutional claims must be expressly raised in trial court for appellate review
Whether opposing removal generally preserves a constitutional argument for appeal	DSS: Mere opposition is not sufficient; must raise constitutional basis	Father: General opposition sufficient to preserve constitutional challenge	Explicit constitutional challenge required for preservation
Validity of Court of Appeals’ preservation rule from In re B.R.W.	DSS: Rule conflicts with Supreme Court’s precedent in In re J.N.; should be overruled	Father: Rule should be upheld to protect parental rights and avoid forfeiture by procedural default	Court of Appeals’ rule overruled; Supreme Court precedent controls
Should Court consider unpreserved constitutional issues under Rule 2 in interest of justice	DSS: Rule is discretionary and did not apply here; no manifest injustice	Father: Due process merits review even if unpreserved given consequences	Supreme Court declines to apply Rule 2; strict adherence to preservation rules

Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (parental rights under Due Process Clause)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental fundamental rights)
Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (parental conduct inconsistent with protected status)
Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 (presumption of parental fitness)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence)
Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142 (application of best interest standard to parents)
In re J.N., 381 N.C. 131 (constitutional claims must be preserved at trial)