In re Adoption of C.H.M.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
NEWBY, Justice.
In this case we consider whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the trial court's order requiring respondent father's consent before proceeding with the adoption of minor child C.H.M. To protect the significant interests of the child, biological parents, and adoptive parents, Chapter 48 of our General Statutes, governing *806adoption procedures in North Carolina, establishes clear, objective tests to determine whose consent is required before a court may grant an adoption petition. Under section 48-3-601, a putative father may unilaterally protect his…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Matter of HelmsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
- Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- Penland v. BIRD COAL COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Eubanks v. EubanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re M.C.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
- In re M.C., M.C., M.C.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2020