In re E.Q.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (August 1, 2023)

Affirmed in Part
Vacated in Part
  • Facts: Mother initiated a TPR against father, which was granted. Father appeals by challenging the adjudication order terminating his parental rights of three children and dispositional order prohibiting contact and communication with the children. Father had a long history of repeated incarcerations, made threatening phone calls to mother, and was subject to a DVPO prohibiting contact between himself and mother. This summary focuses on the dispositional argument that the court had no authority to prohibit contact and communication between father and the children in the dispositional portion of the TPR order.
  • Although father argued the court issued a no-contact order when entering the dispositional order prohibiting contact and communication between father and the children, “[t]here is no indication in the Record that the trial court attempted to issue its no-contact order under Chapter 50B.” Sl.Op. at 14.
  • The court abused its discretion by restricting father’s ability to contact the children. No provisions of G.S. Chapter 7B authorize a trial court to issue a no-contact order in a G.S. Chapter 7B case. The trial court lacked statutory authority to include the no-contact provision in its dispositional order, therefore the court must vacate that portion of the order.
Termination of Parental Rights
Click on a term below for additional case summaries tagged with the same term.