In re B.R.W.

• Decision Date: 06 May 2022
• Docket Number: 310A21
• Citation: 871 S.E.2d 764
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: B.R.W., B.G.W.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

871 S.E.2d 764

In the MATTER OF: B.R.W., B.G.W.

No. 310A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2022

James N. Freeman, Jr., Elkin, for petitioner-appellee Yadkin County Human Services Agency.

Paul W. Freeman, Jr., Wilkesboro, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

J. Thomas Diepenbrock, Asheville, for respondent-appellant mother.

ERVIN, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother Kimberly S. appeals from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirming, in part, and reversing, in part, a permanency planning order awarding legal guardianship of respondent-mother's two minor children, B.R.W. and B.G.W.¹ to Shonnie W., the children's paternal grandmother. After careful consideration of respondent-mother's challenges to the Court of Appeals’ decision in light of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

I. Factual Background

A. Substantive Facts

¶ 2 On 1 May 2018, the Yadkin County Human Services Agency received a child protective services report alleging that Brittany and Brianna, ages four and seven, respectively, were neglected juveniles. At that time, Brittany and Brianna were living in a house with their father, Matthew W.; the paternal grandmother; and a paternal great-grandmother. According to the allegations contained in the report, the father "was intoxicated and busting plates and throwing glass in the home." After the paternal grandmother removed the children from the home and contacted law enforcement officers, the father was placed under arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct, resisting a public officer, and violating probation. The father was expected to be incarcerated for the next two years.

¶ 3 On 14 June 2018, HSA filed a petition alleging that Brittany and Brianna were neglected juveniles in that they "live[d] in an environment injurious to [their] welfare." On the same date, Judge William F. Brooks entered an order placing the children in the custody of the paternal grandmother and great-grandmother pending further proceedings. After a hearing held on 25 June 2018, Judge Brooks entered an order on 19 July 2018 finding that respondent-mother was living in Alexander County with her husband, John S., who "has an extensive criminal history including drug-related convictions, assault on a female, larceny, and multiple DWIs" and struggles with alcohol abuse. Judge Brooks further found that, after separating from the father and leaving his home in 2015, respondent-mother had "occasionally visited" with Brittany and Brianna at the father's home and at family gatherings but that she had "not made decisions regarding the minor children's education or welfare, contributed financially to their support and maintenance, or otherwise filled the role of parent/caretaker of the minor children since she and [the father] separated." As a result, Judge Brooks sanctioned the children's continued placement with the paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother and authorized both respondent-mother and the father to visit with the children on the condition that they not currently be incarcerated. Judge Brooks also ordered HSA to coordinate with the Alexander County Department of Social Services to conduct a home study of respondent-mother's residence and authorized HSA to place the children in respondent-mother's home if the agency determined the home to be "a suitable and appropriate placement for the minor children."

¶ 4 On 13 July 2018, respondent-mother and the stepfather entered an Out of Home Family Services Agreement with HSA pursuant to which they were required to (1) "[c]omplete a psychological assessment and complete any recommendations made by the assessor," (2) "[p]articipate in a substance abuse assessment and complete any recommendations made by the assessor," (3) "[s]ubmit to random drug screens," (4) "[c]omplete a parenting education program and present [HSA] with a certificate of completion," and (5) "[d]emonstrate stable employment." On 27 July 2018, HSA reported that respondent-mother and the stepfather still lived in Alexander County, had full-time employment, had been attending parenting classes, and had been visiting with the children and that respondent-mother had spoken with the children by phone as well. According to the guardian ad litem, the children "say they like seeing their [m]om" but also express that they "like living with their grandmothers."

¶ 5 After a hearing held on 2 August 2018, Judge Brooks entered an order on 31 August 2018 adjudicating Brittany and Brianna to be neglected juveniles. According to Judge Brooks, respondent-mother and the stepfather had visited with the children on multiple occasions since entering HSA custody, with "[t]hese visits hav[ing] gone well and [with] their interactions with the children hav[ing] been appropriate." Although Judge Brooks "[took] note of the fact that a significant period of time [had] elapsed since [respondent-mother] [had] been involved in the lives of the minor children on a regular basis," it nevertheless found that she appeared to have "some bond" with her daughters. After keeping the existing placement and visitation orders in effect, Judge Brooks authorized HSA to increase the frequency and duration of respondent-mother's visits with Brittany and Brianna. Finally, Judge Brooks established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification, with a secondary permanent plan of guardianship.

¶ 6 On 16 August 2018, respondent-mother informed the Alexander County Department of Social Services that her landlord was selling the mobile home in which she and the stepfather had been living, that they were being forced to move, and that she did not know how the required home study could be conducted. On 29 August 2018, the Alexander County Department of Social Services declined to approve the home that respondent-mother and the stepfather occupied in light of their lack of stable housing and the stepfather's extensive criminal history.

¶ 7 After a 90-day review hearing held on 25 October 2018, Judge Robert J. Crumpton entered an order on 6 December 2018 finding that respondent-mother had made significant progress in satisfying the requirements of her family services agreement in light of the fact that she had secured temporary housing in Wilkes County, maintained stable employment, had access to reliable transportation, visited with the children regularly, remained in contact with HSA, submitted to random drug screenings, and completed a psychological assessment. On the other hand, Judge Crumpton found that respondent-mother had failed to complete a substance abuse assessment or a parenting education program. In addition, Judge Crumpton found that the stepfather had also been visiting with the children regularly, had remained in contact with HSA, and had submitted to random drug screenings; that he was unemployed "due to a back injury"; and that he had not completed either a substance abuse assessment or a parenting education program. After noting that respondent-mother and the stepfather "have consistently attended visitation with the minor children" and "appear to be bonded with the children," so that HSA had exercised its authority to increase the amount of visitation to which respondent-mother and the stepfather were entitled, Judge Crumpton retained the existing visitation arrangement while authorizing HSA to increase the frequency and duration of the visits between respondent-mother, the stepfather, and the children and to allow unsupervised visitation. Finally, Judge Crumpton determined that the primary permanent plan for the children should remain reunification, with the secondary permanent plan being one of guardianship.

¶ 8 On 14 May 2019, HSA submitted a revised court report noting that respondent-mother had been "working diligently on her" family services agreement, that she had participated in parenting classes, and that she had an "agree[ment] to increase the hours she works so that her income can increase in order to best meet the needs of her child[ren]." Similarly, HSA reported that the stepfather had "made substantial progress" in satisfying the requirements of his own family services agreement despite the fact that he did not have a regular income. HSA noted that respondent-mother and the stepfather had been participating in unsupervised visitation with the children on Saturday afternoons, that they took the children to church on the last Sunday of each month, and that respondent-mother was in compliance with her obligation to make court-ordered child support payments, having even made payments against an existing arrearage. After acknowledging the progress that both parents had made in satisfying the requirements of their family service agreements, HSA observed that "[p]arenting classes need to be completed and the home is not yet ready to house the children." As a result, HSA recommended that Brittany and Brianna remain in their current placement with the paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother and that it be authorized, in the exercise of its discretion, to allow overnight visitation between the children, on the one hand, and respondent-mother and the stepfather, on the other.

¶ 9 On 3 May 2019, the guardian ad litem submitted a report indicating that, while she "would like to support and encourage [respondent-mother's] relationship with" Brittany and Brianna, she had "serious concerns" relating to the stepfather. More specifically, the guardian ad litem stated that she had witnessed the stepfather "become increasingly angry with [HSA] social workers" at a Child and Family Team meeting, held on 26 April 2019, before "storming out mad and ordering [respondent-mother] [to] come with him." In light of this experience, the guardian ad litem stated that she was "extremely concerned about the safety of the girls, as well as [respondent-mother,]" and expressed the opinion that the "primary" motivation underlying the attempts that respondent-mother and the stepfather had...