372 N.C. 396
N.C.2019Background
- DSS became involved in Sept 2015; both parents incarcerated by Jan 4, 2016 and children placed in foster care; juveniles adjudicated neglected and dependent Feb 23, 2016.
- Respondent (father) failed to complete his case plan and was later extradited to West Virginia; reunification efforts ceased April 11, 2017.
- DSS petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights (grounds: neglect; failure to make reasonable progress; dependency).
- Trial court held a termination hearing Nov 13, 2017 and entered an order terminating father’s parental rights on Jan 5, 2018.
- On appeal, appellate counsel filed a Rule 3.1(d) no-merit brief identifying three arguable issues but concluding no meritorious grounds for reversal; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal citing In re L.V. and declined independent review.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Rule 3.1(d) requires appellate independent review of issues raised in a no-merit brief; the Court conducted the independent review and affirmed the termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSS/State) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 3.1(d) requires appellate courts to independently review issues identified in a no-merit brief in TPR appeals | Rule 3.1(d) contemplates appellate consideration and independent review of issues identified in a no-merit brief | Court of Appeals (in In re L.V.) argued Rule 3.1(d) does not preserve issues for review absent an argued brief; thus panels could dismiss | Rule 3.1(d) mandates independent appellate review of issues in a properly filed no-merit brief; In re L.V. overruled |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the appeal for lack of preserved/appellate-argued issues | Dismissal was improper because Rule 3.1(d) requires review even if the parent does not file a pro se brief | Court of Appeals majority maintained dismissal was required under existing precedent | Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and found dismissal erroneous |
| Whether the trial court’s termination order was supported by competent evidence and proper legal grounds | Trial court’s findings were supported by the record (neglect; failure to make reasonable progress) | Respondent claimed issues (as identified by counsel) could support reversal | After independent review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s order was supported by competent evidence and affirmed termination |
| Remedy/remand question: should the Supreme Court remand or decide the merits itself | DSS favored prompt resolution for child permanency | Respondent sought appellate review under Rule 3.1(d) and a remand for Court of Appeals review | Supreme Court elected to conduct its own review and affirm rather than remand to Court of Appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s duty when finding appeal frivolous and requirement of court review)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest warranting heightened procedural protections)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (discusses due process in parental rights contexts)
- State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 (1985) (North Carolina application of Anders procedures)
- In re L.V., 814 S.E.2d 928 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals decision holding it could dismiss appeals following no-merit briefs; overruled)
- In re N.B., 183 N.C. App. 114 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (Court of Appeals declined to extend Anders protections to TPR appeals and urged reconsideration)