North Carolina—standing—no "injury in fact" requirement—legal right arising from statute—In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court held that, unlike the federal constitution, the North Carolina Constitution does not impose an "injury in fact" requirement for standing, and therefore a committee to elect a political candidate had standing to seek statutory damages against a political action committee for running a television advertisement that allegedly violated a "stand by your ad" law, even though the candidate won his election. The Court further clarified that where a statute (such as the "stand by your ad" law) expressly confers a cause of action to a class of persons, entitling them to sue for infringement of a legal right arising from the statute, a plaintiff has standing to bring that cause of action so long as he or she belongs to that designated class of persons. Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm. , 376 N.C. 558 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Appointed counsel—assistance from guardian ad litem—ineffective assistance of counsel claim—In a termination of parental rights case where the guardian ad litem participated in the hearing by questioning some witnesses and making arguments to the trial court, respondent's claim that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her appointed counsel was not sufficiently involved with the proceeding was rejected because the record reflected that counsel was engaged throughout and utilized the assistance of the guardian ad litem to better serve respondent. Respondent's additional claim that the guardian ad litem was unprepared to assist her counsel was not supported by the record. In re J.E.B. , 376 N.C. 629 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—dependency—sufficiency of findings—The trial court's findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to his child based on dependency where the sole finding related to dependency–stating that there was no proper plan of care for the child during an incident in which respondent experienced a medical issue–was not supported by the evidence. There were no findings, nor evidence presented, that respondent's health prevented him from providing proper care or supervision of the child. In re C.L.H. , 376 N.C. 614 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—neglect—findings of fact—A trial court's uncontested findings of fact supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights to her child based on neglect, where the findings not only demonstrated respondent's failure to adequately address the domestic violence and substance abuse issues that contributed to the child being adjudicated neglected and dependent but also indicated a likelihood of future neglect based on respondent's noncompliance with her case plan. Although portions of certain findings were unsupported by the evidence with regard to specific aspects of the case plan, any errors were harmless in light of the remaining supported findings. In re S.R.F. , 376 N.C. 647 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Grounds for termination—neglect—sufficiency of findings—The trial court's findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to his child based on neglect where the sole finding–stating that the child was previously neglected due to lack of care when respondent experienced a medical issue–was not supported by the evidence. Further, the findings failed to address whether the child would be neglected in the future if returned to respondent's care. In re C.L.H. , 376 N.C. 614 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to pay child support—sufficiency of findings—In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court's findings were insufficient to support termination on the grounds of willful failure to pay child support where they failed to address whether an enforceable child support order was in place within one year prior to the termination petition being filed. The termination order was vacated and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding the need for new evidence and to enter an order with findings and conclusions regarding the existence of a valid support order. In re C.L.H. , 376 N.C. 614 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Guardian ad litem participation in hearing—appointed counsel's duties—N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101.1(d)—Respondent mother received a fundamentally fair hearing in a termination of parental rights case even though her guardian ad litem cross-examined witnesses and made arguments to the court (which was at the express direction of, or in apparent coordination with, respondent's appointed counsel). There was no violation of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101.1(d) where counsel's actions representing respondent throughout the proceeding did not demonstrate an abdication of his responsibilities and where the clear statutory language required only that the parent's counsel and guardian ad litem not be the same person and did not constitute a prohibition against the guardian ad litem from assisting counsel as he did here. In re J.E.B. , 376 N.C. 629 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

No-merit brief—neglect—lifetime incarceration of father—In a termination of parental rights case where respondent-father was incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole for murder and for shooting a child, counsel for respondent filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Appellate Rule 3.1(e) which conceded that counsel could find no meritorious argument to challenge termination on the ground of neglect or the conclusion that termination was in the best interests of the child. After an independent review of the entire record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's termination of respondent's parental rights. In re S.F.D. , 376 N.C. 643 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)