In re I.P., ___ N.C. App. ___, 820 S.E.2d 586 (2018)

Held: 
Dismissed
There is a dissent
Since this opinion was published, the supreme court decided In re L.E.M., __ N.C. __ (Aug. 16, 2019), which mandates an independent review
  • Respondent father’s counsel filed a no merit brief under Appellate Rule 3.1(d) for an order that terminated father’s parental rights on five different grounds, noting there was no error on the ground of neglect and no abuse of discretion in determining the TPR was in the child’s best interest. Counsel complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1(d), including notifying respondent father of his right to file a pro se brief. Counsel filed a motion requesting an extension of time for respondent father to file a pro se brief, which was granted. Respondent father filed his brief late, appears to request the appeal be held in abeyance (which was denied), and argues a “bare assertion of error unsupported by citation to any record evidence or legal authority” and is therefore abandoned. Sl. Op. at 8. See In re C.D.A.W., 175 N.C. App. 680 (2006); App. Rule 28(b)(6). Respondent father’s arguments are untimely and not properly before the court as they are unsupported allegations of error. Citing In re L.V., ___ N.C. App. ___ (July 3, 2018), the appeal must be dismissed as no issues have been argued or preserved for appellate review.
Category:
Termination of Parental Rights
Stage:
Appeal
Topic:
No Merit Brief
Tags:
Click on a term below for additional case summaries tagged with the same term.