In re

• Decision Date: 18 March 2022
• Docket Number: 154A21
• Citation: 380 N.C. 747,869 S.E.2d 710
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: J.I.G. and A.M.G.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

380 N.C. 747

869 S.E.2d 710

In the MATTER OF: J.I.G. and A.M.G.

No. 154A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 18, 2022

Melissa Starr Livesay, for petitioner-appellee Forsyth County Department of Social Services.

Mary V. Cavanagh, Winterville, and Jordan P. Spanner for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Robert W. Ewing, Clemmons, for respondent-appellant father.

MORGAN, Justice.

¶ 1 The trial court in this case terminated the parental rights of respondent-father to two juveniles, James and Amy¹ , after finding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the existence of three grounds for the termination of parental rights as enumerated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) (2021). Respondent-father challenges the evidentiary basis for the trial court's adjudication of the existence of each of the three grounds but does not challenge the trial court's conclusion that termination of respondent-father's parental rights served the best interests of the juveniles. Because we determine that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact which support the determination that respondent-father "is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile, such that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of [N.C.G.S. §] 7B-101, and that there is a reasonable probability that the incapability will continue for the foreseeable future" as required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), the trial court's order terminating respondent-father's parental rights is affirmed.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 5 May 2017, 9-week-old James was admitted to the intensive care unit of Brenner Children's Hospital in Forsyth County after James's mother called the telephone emergency number 911 to report that the juvenile was limp and appeared to have ceased breathing. The attending physician determined that James was in critical condition due to extensive non-accidental trauma which included approximately 67 fractures to the infant's bones throughout his body. The mother told the attending physician that she had left James propped upon the edge of a bed with a bottle and had left the room. When the juvenile's mother returned to the room, James was nonresponsive on the floor. A Forsyth County Department of Social Services (DSS) social worker interviewed James's mother at the hospital. The mother provided vacillating stories regarding the circumstances which existed at the time that the juvenile suffered his injuries. First, the child's mother represented that she was the only person who provided care for James and his three-year-old sister Amy, and that Amy must have been the one to hurt James because Amy was "hyper." Initially, the mother refused to reveal the identity of the father of James and Amy. Eventually, the mother revealed that respondent-father was the father of James and Amy, along with the disclosure that he had been residing in the same home as the children at the time of James's injuries. The mother explained that respondent-father would look after the children while she worked, and that respondent-father had been taking care of James and Amy while the mother worked on the night before James was admitted to the hospital for the infant's injuries. The DSS social worker interviewed the juvenile Amy on the following day. The social worker asked Amy if she knew how her brother James had been injured, and the three-year-old affirmatively nodded her head. Amy volunteered that "Mommy threw the baby on the floor" and that "Mommy was mad and shoved brother in [sic] the floor," as recorded by the DSS social worker. DSS also interviewed respondent-father who, like the mother, could not offer a plausible explanation for the cause of the injuries to James. While respondent-father instead repeatedly admitted that he had dropped James on the floor, the attending physician explained that respondent-father's story could not account for the extent of the infant's injuries.

¶ 3 On 9 May 2017, Forsyth County DSS filed juvenile petitions which alleged that both James and Amy were neglected and dependent juveniles, and that James was also an abused juvenile. The trial court entered orders granting nonsecure custody of both children to DSS on the same day based on the allegations contained within the petitions. On 13 September 2017, an adjudication hearing was held concerning the petitions. Respondent-father stipulated to the factual basis contained within the petitions, resulting in the trial court adjudicating James to be an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile, and adjudicating Amy to be a neglected and dependent juvenile. Respondent-father was actively engaged in satisfying his case plan by attending the majority of his assigned parenting classes, visitation sessions, and court-ordered mental health and substance abuse assessments. However, respondent-father was arrested on 7 November 2017 and charged with four counts of felony child abuse based upon the injuries sustained by James in May 2017. Respondent-father remained incarcerated throughout the pendency of this case due to his inability to secure funds to post his assigned bond on the felony charges.

¶ 4 On 6 December 2019, Forsyth County DSS filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of the mother and respondent-father. However, due to COVID-19, issues with notice, and the illness of counsel, the trial court dismissed the termination motion without prejudice. DSS subsequently filed a second motion on 13 November 2020 to terminate the parental rights of the children's mother and respondent-father, alleging that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to both James and Amy under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (neglect) and (6) (incapacity), and additionally as to James alone under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (abuse). The TPR motions in this case were heard on 22 February 2021. At the hearing, the trial court received testimony from DSS social workers, the Guardian ad Litem for the juveniles, the mother of the juveniles, and respondent-father. On 19 March 2021, the trial court entered an order pursuant to this hearing which terminated the parental rights of the mother and respondent-father to both James and Amy.

¶ 5 Based on previous adjudication orders entered in this case, DSS's investigation, and the testimony provided at the TPR hearing, the trial court entered findings in the termination of parental rights order which reflect that respondent-father has "severe cognitive defects" which present themselves as deficits in reasoning, problem solving, planning, and judgment. Further, respondent-father has an IQ of 61 and has been diagnosed with unspecified intellectual disability, bipolar disorder

, and ADHD. Respondent-father has received SSI disability payments since he was seven years old due to his mental health and cognitive issues, and respondent-father has used these funds in the past to help to satisfy the basic needs of James and Amy. Respondent-father was ordered to complete a parenting capacity evaluation in order to assess his ability to parent, but he has declined an assessment arranged by DSS while he has been incarcerated.

¶ 6 In light of the refusal of both parents to explain the source of James's extensive injuries, the trial court found that both the mother and respondent-father were responsible for having abused their son. The trial court found that "there is no evidence presented that the Father's cognitive defects and abilities ... are expected to change." Due to respondent-father's profound mental impairment

, the trial court further found that respondent-father "lacks the ability to independently care for the minor children" and "the capacity to parent." The trial court went on to find that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the determination that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to James and Amy under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (neglect) and (6) (incapacity), and additionally as to James alone under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (abuse). The trial court concluded that the termination of the parental rights of respondent-father to James and Amy would serve the best interests of the juveniles. Respondent-father timely filed notice of appeal.²

II. Analysis

¶ 7 Before this Court, respondent-father contends that the trial court's findings of fact fail to establish that he lacked the capacity to parent, that James and Amy were neglected juveniles, and that James was an abused juvenile at the hands of respondent-father. Regarding the existence of the ground of dependency as memorialized in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), respondent-father cites evidence in the record which he submits would support a finding that he would have the capacity to parent the juveniles once respondent-father is released from incarceration. Respondent-father also challenges the trial court's finding of fact that expresses respondent-father's incapacity to parent.

¶ 8 Respondent-father's appeal represents a challenge to the trial court's adjudication of the existence of each ground for the termination of respondent-father's parental rights contained within the order terminating his parental rights entered on 19 March 2021. Upon appeal, this Court is governed by the following principles:

We review the trial court's adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law. Unchallenged findings of fact are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Moreover, we review only those findings needed to sustain the trial court's adjudication.

The issue of whether a trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law is reviewed de novo. However, an adjudication of any single ground for terminating a parent's rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) will suffice to support a termination order. Therefore, if this Court upholds the trial court

...