{
  "id": 8527118,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTY ANN MOORE, ALBERT WILLIAM MOORE, TIMMIE DALE MOORE, Minor Children",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Moore",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8313DC723",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 300"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 607",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "611"
        },
        {
          "page": "611"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524858
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327-28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "802"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524906
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 S.E. 2d 236",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "240-41",
          "parenthetical": "ability to pay is controlling characteristic of what is a reasonable amount to pay; as with child support orders, determination must be based upon interplay of amount necessary to meet reasonable needs of child, and the relative ability of the parties to provide it"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2673547
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339-41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 S.E. 2d 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "55"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574984
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "604"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0592-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 4405,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34063472426384706
    },
    "sha256": "a534fdf2c255e8a749280aa51f7accfaa27cae0dadbffe1045e2d17ff5de07d8",
    "simhash": "1:813bc20b24ee7946",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTY ANN MOORE, ALBERT WILLIAM MOORE, TIMMIE DALE MOORE, Minor Children"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nIn this jurisdiction parental rights may be terminated upon a finding that \u201c[t]he child has been placed in the custody of a county department of social services, . . . and the parent, for a continuous period of six months next preceding the filing of the petition, has failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the child.\u201d G.S. 7A-289.32(4). Our courts have upheld the constitutionality of this provision. In re Clark, 303 N.C. 592, 281 S.E. 2d 47 (1981); In re Biggers, 50 N.C. App. 332, 274 S.E. 2d 236 (1981).\nOur Supreme Court has stated, however, that\n[a] parent\u2019s ability to pay is the controlling characteristic of what is a \u201creasonable portion\u201d of cost of foster care for the child which the parent must pay. A parent is required to pay that portion of the cost of foster care for the child that is fair, just and equitable based upon the parent\u2019s ability or means to pay.\nClark, supra, 303 N.C. at 604, 281 S.E. 2d at 55. This Court has stated, in light of the foregoing from Clark, that \u201cnonpayment would constitute a failure to pay a \u2018reasonable portion\u2019 if and only if respondent were able to pay some amount greater than zero.\u201d In re Bradley, 57 N.C. App. 475, 479, 291 S.E. 2d 800, 802 (1982); see also Biggers, supra, 50 N.C. App. at 339-41, 274 S.E. 2d at 240-41 (ability to pay is controlling characteristic of what is a reasonable amount to pay; as with child support orders, determination must be based upon interplay of amount necessary to meet reasonable needs of child, and the relative ability of the parties to provide it).\nThis Court also has stated, in a termination case in which the respondent contended she was unable to pay any of the child care costs, that \u201cthe better practice would have been for the trial court to have made separate findings as to her failure to pay.\u201d In re Allen, 58 N.C. App. 322, 327-28, 293 S.E. 2d 607, 611 (1982). The Court there found \u201cno prejudice in this error\u201d only because there were other grounds for termination sufficient to sustain the order. Id. at 328, 293 S.E. 2d at 611.\nThe only express basis for termination found here was the G.S. 7A-289.32(4) ground that respondent had failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of child care. The court made no finding that respondent was able to pay such portion. It found that \u201cshe has no outside employment except for working in the river on an occasional basis\u201d and \u201cthat because of a depressed economic situation in the home . . . she is not able to meet the financial needs of [the children].\u201d Ability to meet the financial needs of the children is not the test, however. The test is whether respondent was \u201cable to pay some amount greater than zero.\u201d Bradley, supra.\nPursuant to the foregoing authorities, we hold that the court erred in failing to make findings as to respondent\u2019s ability to pay some portion of the cost of child care. Unlike in Allen, respondent\u2019s failure to pay such was the sole ground for termination. The error thus cannot be held nonprejudicial, and the case must be remanded for findings as to whether respondent is \u201cable to pay some amount greater than zero.\u201d\nRemanded for findings.\nJudges Webb and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walton, Fairley & Jess, by Elva L. Jess, for respondent appellant.",
      "David L. Clegg for petitioner appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTY ANN MOORE, ALBERT WILLIAM MOORE, TIMMIE DALE MOORE, Minor Children\nNo. 8313DC723\n(Filed 1 May 1984)\nParent and Child \u00a7 1.5\u2014 termination of parental rights \u2014 failure to pay reasonable portion of cost of care \u2014 necessity for findings as to ability to pay\nThe trial court erred in terminating respondent mother\u2019s parental rights for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the costs of care for her three children who had been placed in the custody of a county department of social services where the court failed to make findings as to respondent\u2019s ability to pay some portion of the costs of child care.\nAPPEAL by respondent Helen Dixon from Gore, Judge. Juvenile order entered 11 February 1983 in District Court, BRUNSWICK County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 April 1984.\nRespondent Helen Dixon (hereafter respondent) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, pursuant to G.S. 7A-289.32(4), for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for her three children who had been placed in the custody of the Brunswick County Department of Social Services.\nWalton, Fairley & Jess, by Elva L. Jess, for respondent appellant.\nDavid L. Clegg for petitioner appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 334
}
