1. The Price To Parent: How the Supreme Court of North Carolina's Decision in In re J. C.J. To Terminate Parental Rights for Nonpayment of Foster Care Costs Violates Equal Protection.
- Author
-
Pearson, Becca
- Subjects
Administrative agencies -- Powers and duties ,Foster home care -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Best interests of the child doctrine -- Analysis ,Termination of parental rights -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Equality before the law -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Payment -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Custody of children -- Laws, regulations and rules ,Constitutional law -- Interpretation and construction ,J.C.J., In re (874 S.E.2d 888 (N.C. 2022)) ,Government regulation ,Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(17)) ,North Carolina. Juvenile Code (N.C. Juv. Code 7B-1111(a)(3)) ,Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 ,United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. 14) - Abstract
INTRODUCTION In July 2022, just days after celebrating their twin sons' seventh birthdays, Courtney and Jeremey Johnson's parental rights were terminated. (1) For five years, the Johnsons fought to get [...], In July 2022, following a five-year battle to reunify with their twin sons, Courtney and Jeremy Johnson's parental rights were terminated. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina evaluated only one statutory ground for termination of their parental rights: section 7B-1111(a)(3) of the juvenile code, which allows the State to terminate parental rights for willful nonpayment of foster care costs. But the Johnsons were never told that they owed the State any money, let alone how much, or to whom, they were supposed to pay. This Recent Development argues that the Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision in In re J.C.J. to terminate the Johnsons' parental rights under section 7B-1111(a) was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
- Published
- 2024