# In Re APA

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · November 2, 1982 · 59 N.C. App. 322

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588099

## Case

- **Full name:** In RE: APA, a Minor Child
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 2, 1982
- **Citations:** 59 N.C. App. 322; 296 S.E.2d 811; 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3123
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Webb
- **Judges:** Hedrick, Hill, Webb
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588099

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the trial court’s finding of abandonment was sufficiently supported where, “except for an abandoned attempt to negotiate visitation and support, [the] respondent made no other significant attempts to establish a relationship with [the child]”
- holding the trial court did not err in concluding the minor child was abandoned where the respondent-father “made no other significant attempts to establish a relationship with [the minor child] or obtain rights of visitation with [the -9- IN RE: C.H.B. Opinion of the Court mi…
- affirming an order terminating parental rights of the father based on abandonment where the court’s unchallenged findings provided that “except for an abandoned attempt to negotiate visitation and support, respondent ‘made no other significant attempts to establish a relations…
- affirming termination where “except for an abandoned attempt to negotiate visitation and support, [the respondent-father] ‘made no other significant attempts to establish a relationship with [the child] or obtain rights of visitation with [the child]’ ”

## Opinion text

Judge WEBB
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority. The evidence shows the respondent and the petitioner were married but living apart at the time the child was born. They were later divorced and the petitioner was awarded custody of the child. The respondent was not ordered by the divorce decree or any other decree to provide support for the child. The respondent has always lived great distances from the child. On several occasions, the respondent has tried to make contact with the child, but such attempts have been unsuccessful. The respondent has never supported the child but on one occasion sent him a bicycle. The court made findings of fact based on this evidence.
I do not believe the evidence or findings of fact support a conclusion that the respondent has neglected the child so that his parental rights may be terminated. I vote to reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588099. Public record. Not legal advice.