Articles related to termination of parental rights

The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina (Lumbee) has received full federal recognition through the Lumbee Fairness Act, which was included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The law was signed by the President, granting full federal recognition to the Lumbee on December 18, 2025. This is an extraordinary time for the Lumbee, who will have access to services and resources (such as support with education, health care, and housing) from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as well as the right to self-governance.

One immediate change is the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to the Lumbee. This change impacts abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D) and termination of parental rights (TPR) action. (It also impacts all adoptions of minors (including stepparent adoptions but that is beyond the scope of this post)

There are additional protections ICWA provides in A/N/D and TPR proceedings when an Indian child is involved. An Indian child now includes a juvenile who is either (1) a member of the Lumbee or (2) eligible for membership with the Lumbee and who have a biological parent who is a member of a fully federally recognized Indian tribe. See 25 U.S.C. 1903(4) & 25 C.F.R. 23.2 (definition of “Indian child”). There are new steps the court and participants must follow when an Indian child who is affiliated with the Lumbee is the subject of the suit. Although these changes are effective now (and started on December 18, 2025), this is a time of significant transition for the Lumbee, where procedures and policies are being created and implemented.

A recent decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals considers the right of a respondent parent in a juvenile abuse, neglect, or dependency (AND) proceeding to hire counsel of their own choosing and what standards, if any, a retained attorney must meet to be allowed to represent a parent. In re A.K., __ N.C. App. __ (August 6, 2024). The case also includes discussion of the procedures for appointing a Rule 17 guardian ad litem to a respondent parent – an issue I will explore in a later post. This post focuses on what the opinion in A.K. does – and does not – tell us about a parent’s right to hire counsel.

My belated Valentine’s gift to you all is the 2023 edition of Abuse, Neglect, Dependency, and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings in North Carolina, otherwise known as “the A/N/D Manual” […]

North Carolina law requires that parents in abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D) and termination of parental rights (TPR) cases receive court-appointed counsel if they are indigent. G.S. 7B-602; 7B-1101.1. Parents also have a right to knowingly and voluntarily waive their statutory right to counsel. Id. The question of whether a parent may forfeit their right to counsel in a juvenile proceeding based on their behaviors had not been answered until recently. Three appellate opinions address the issue and answer that question. Parents can and have forfeited their statutory right to court-appointed counsel. To get to forfeiture, you first need to understand the rules related to a parent’s statutory right to court-appointed counsel.

Consider an attorney who is appointed to represent an indigent parent in a juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) proceeding. The attorney reviews the petition which was prepared using form […]

The ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic on prisons and the court system have been wide-reaching. We are still seeing, and will likely continue to see, the tentacles of these issues stretch into cases for years to come. The North Carolina Supreme Court recently issued a decision tackling one such issue: whether a parent who was unable to attend a termination of parental rights hearing because he was incarcerated during a pandemic-related prison lockdown was entitled to a continuance so he could be present for the hearing. In re C.A.B., 2022-NCSC-51, ¶ 1.

In the last two years, the North Carolina Supreme Court has published two opinions that answer questions raised about whether a North Carolina district court has personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of a parent who lives outside of North Carolina. Both opinions are cases of first impression. Both opinions held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the respondent parent. One opinion held the district court also had subject matter jurisdiction in the TPR action. Both opinions affirmed the challenged TPR orders. Both opinions overturn previous court of appeals opinions on the issues raised. Here’s what you need to know.

It is with great joy and enthusiasm that I am announcing these two updated resources for those of you who work in the area of child welfare. Abuse, Neglect, Dependency, […]

I apologize for getting that song stuck in your head. Unless you like that song, in which case enjoy.

Scenario: You represent a respondent parent in an abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) proceeding. The permanent plan is adoption, and DSS (or your jurisdiction’s equivalent agency) filed a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR). The trial court granted the TPR. Your client intends to appeal once the written order is entered. (Note that effective July 1, 2021, appeals of TPR orders are heard by the Court of Appeals pursuant to the newly amended G.S. 7B-1001(a)(7); see S.L. 2021-18).

A trial court can enforce a TPR order while an appeal is pending unless a stay has been entered. G.S. 7B-1003(a); G.S. 1A-1, Rule 62(d). As the trial attorney, you and your client should consider seeking a stay of the TPR order pending the appeal.

READ POST "Staycation All I Ever Wanted: Why Parent Attorneys Should Consider Requesting Stays of TPR Orders (September 15, 2021)"

Since January 1, 2019, termination of parental rights (TPR) orders are appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In August 2019, the Supreme Court published its first appellate opinions under this new TPR appellate procedure. Between August 2019 and today, the Supreme Court has decided 134 TPR opinions, all of which are published. Each of those published opinions from our state’s highest court established or reinforced a precedent. Perhaps because of that, new and old arguments have been raised before the Supreme Court in those TPR appeals. This post focuses on what the Supreme Court has held when addressing the dispositional stage of the TPR.