In re B.M.
| Decision Date | 18 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | COA22-302 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: B.M. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2023.
Appeal by respondent-mother and respondent-father from orders entered 17 December 2021 and 13 January 2022 by Judge Erin Hucks in Union County District Court No. 20 JT 04
Perry Bundy, Plyler &Long, LLP, by Ashley J. McBride, for petitioner-appellee Union County Division of Social Services.
Kimberly Connor Benton for respondent-appellant mother.
Anne C. Wright for respondent-appellant father.
Ward and Smith, P.A., by Mary V. Cavanagh and Jordan P. Spanner for guardian ad litem.
Before a panel consisting of Judges ZACHARY, MURPHY, and ARROWOOD.
Respondent-mother and respondent-father appeal the trial court's orders terminating each of their parental rights in the minor child B.M. ("Blake").[1]Respondents argue that the trial court erred by concluding grounds existed to terminate their parental rights, and respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred by determining termination of her parental rights was in Blake's best interests. We affirm the trial court's orders.
The Union County Department of Social Services ("DSS") received a Child Protective Services referral on 25 June 2019 concerning the safety of Blake and his older brothers, Bryant and Ben.[2] Law enforcement officers conducting a traffic stop had arrested respondent-father in front of his children and charged him with felony trafficking opium/heroin, felony trafficking in opiates by possession, and felony possession with intent to sell and deliver heroin. DSS alleged in a petition that both respondents had issues with substance abuse and that previous reports concerned an injurious environment, substance abuse, and physical injury. Pursuant to a Temporary Safety Placement, Blake was placed with his paternal grandparents, who were required to supervise him when around respondents. DSS created a plan for respondents to address substance abuse, child characteristics, and physical health; however, respondents met with DSS only once, on 27 December 2019.
On 13 January 2020, DSS filed a petition alleging that Blake was a neglected and dependent juvenile. Following a Child Protective Services report that respondent-mother was engaging in ongoing drug use in the paternal grandparents' home, DSS filed a second petition alleging Blake was neglected and dependent. The trial court entered a nonsecure custody order placing Blake in the custody of DSS on 24 February 2020.
The trial court conducted an adjudication and disposition hearing and adjudicated Blake a neglected juvenile by order entered 31 March 2020. The court found that Blake lived in an environment injurious to his welfare. Respondents had unaddressed substance abuse issues, had failed to maintain contact with DSS, refused to create a case plan, refused to initiate Intensive Family Preservation Services and Parenting Classes, refused requested drug screens, had not allowed DSS to assess their home for safety and sanitation, had engaged in a pattern of severe and dangerous conduct which would cause injury to a juvenile, and failed to abide by the safety plan in place. Respondent-mother had submitted to a substance abuse assessment but was not forthcoming. In its disposition, the trial court ordered DSS to retain custody of Blake and allowed respondents one hour of supervised visitation per week.
Following the permanency planning hearing on 13 October 2020, the trial court found that respondents were not making substantial progress in their respective case plans. Neither respondent had completed a substance abuse assessment or parenting class until a week before the hearing. Respondent-father had overdosed on 8 June 2020 and was brought back with Narcan. Respondents' visitation with Blake had been inconsistent; and, for a seven-week period, neither respondent attempted any contact. Respondent-father had fallen asleep twice during a visitation. Neither respondent had had any contact with the guardian ad litem. The trial court set a primary permanent plan of adoption along with a secondary concurrent plan of guardianship. The court also directed DSS to initiate a termination of parental rights proceeding.
On 25 January 2021, DSS filed a "Motion for Termination of Parental Rights" alleging the following grounds for terminating respondents' parental rights: neglect under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1); failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the juvenile's care for six continuous months under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3); and dependency under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6).
The trial court conducted another permanency planning hearing on 2 June, 20 July, and 21 July 2021. In its order entered 24 August 2021, the trial court found that respondents had made progress in addressing their identified needs. Both had completed the Nurturing Parenting and Parenting Support Program and completed a substance abuse assessment. Respondent-mother had regularly attended recommended substance abuse classes, obtained housing, maintained employment, applied skills taught in parenting class during visitations, and been appropriate during visitation. Respondent-father's substance abuse assessment had been completed days before the July hearing dates, and his recommended treatment was unknown. He had completed a negative drug screen on 12 July 2021; he had obtained housing; he had applied skills learned in parenting classes during visitation; and his visitations were appropriate. Respondent-father also completed the Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities ("TASC") program through his supervised probation.
However, despite their progress, the trial court noted additional concerns regarding respondents' behavior and decisions. Though respondent-father had been on probation for two-and-a-half years, he did not know his probation officer and had not been drug tested through probation since February 2021. Though he was not to be around anyone known to use, possess or sell any controlled substances as a condition of his probation, respondent-mother's best friend overdosed in respondents' home in February 2021; and, in June 2021, was allowed to stay "a couple of days," during which time she overdosed again. The court found it "clear" that respondent-father has not been "entirely honest with this court or with his treatment providers, specifically with regard to his drug use." Respondent-father had had three different substance abuse assessments, had been discharged from substance abuse treatment in April 2021 for non-attendance, and did not re-engage with treatment until July 2021. During visitations, respondents had given the juveniles false hope and expectations of being reunified with respondents which had negatively impacted the children and caused confusion. The court found that, despite the progress made, "both parents in this case continue to make decisions that negatively impact the safety of their home for their children." The court left unaltered the primary permanent plan of adoption and the secondary concurrent plan of guardianship. The court also ceased visitation between respondents and Blake.
Following a hearing on DSS's motion conducted on 16 November 2021, the trial court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate respondents' parental rights due to neglect and dependency based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence in its order entered on 17 December 2021. In its disposition order entered 22 January 2022, the court terminated respondents' parental rights in Blake after concluding it was his best interests to do so. Respondents appeal.
A termination of parental rights proceeding involves a two-stage process consisting of an adjudication stage and a disposition stage. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1109, 1110 (2021); In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 74 (2019). At the adjudication stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of any of the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 authorizing the termination of the respondent's parental rights. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(e)-(f) (2021). The trial court's findings of fact at that stage "shall be based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(f) (2021). "[A]n adjudication of any single ground in N.C G.S. § 7B-1111(a) is sufficient to support a termination of parental rights." In re N.B., 377 N.C. 349, 353 (2021) (quoting In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 395 (2019)).
We review a trial court's adjudication of grounds to terminate parental rights to determine "whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether those findings support the trial court's conclusions of law." In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 379 (2019) (citing In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 404 (1982)). In re M.S., 378 N.C. 30, 35 (2021) (marks and citations omitted).
We first consider respondent-father's challenge to the adjudication of neglect as a ground to terminate his parental rights in Blake. Respondent-father argues the evidence does not indicate a probability of repetition of neglect.
To continue reading
Request your trial