In re D.L.W., No. 252PA15
| Docket Nº | No. 252PA15 |
| Citation | 788 S.E.2d 162, 368 N.C. 835 |
| Case Date | June 10, 2016 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
368 N.C. 835
788 S.E.2d 162
In the MATTER OF: D.L.W., D.L.N.W., and V.A.W.
No. 252PA15
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed June 10, 2016
Jamie L. Hamlett, Burlington, for Alamance County Department of Social Services, and Derrick J. Hensley, Durham, Guardian ad Litem Program Attorney, for the minor children, petitioner-appellants.
Jeffrey William Gillette, Franklin, for respondent-appellee mother.
Kathleen Arundell Jackson, Charlotte, and Rachael Hawes, Clyde, for North Carolina Association of Department of Social Services Attorneys, amicus curiae.
JACKSON, Justice.
In this case we consider whether the trial court erred by terminating respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect and failure to correct conditions that led to the removal of her children. We hold that the findings in the trial court's order were sufficient
to support termination of parental rights based upon both of these grounds. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals to the contrary.
On 1 March 2013, the Alamance County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that minor children D.L.W., D.L.N.W., and V.A.W. were neglected and dependent juveniles. The petition alleged that DSS had received information that the three juveniles were residing with their mother, Marisha Wade (respondent), and their father "in a van located in the woods that is heated by a kerosene heater," that the parents refused to disclose the van's location or cooperate with DSS's investigation into safety and risk issues, and that the juveniles did not bathe, brush their teeth, or receive adequate nutrition. The petition
also alleged "significant domestic violence between the parents that places the juveniles at risk." Around this same time, the juveniles were placed in the custody of DSS.
At the 1 May 2013 adjudication hearing, based upon stipulations entered into by the parties, the trial court made the following findings relevant to its determination that the juveniles were neglected:
[9.]e. At the time of the filing of the petition the Respondent Mother and Father were residing at times with their three children in a van located in the woods.
f. The Respondent Mother denies the van is heated with a kerosene heater but states the van is run during the night to keep warm, but also states the van is cool enough to store milk.
g. The Respondent Parents refused to disclose the location of the van so that the Alamance County Department of Social Services can assess safety and risk issues.
h. It is reported there was domestic violence between the parents that places the juveniles at risk. For example, [V.A.W.] has intervened when the parents are arguing.
....
j. At times, the family has difficulty providing for basic necessities such as housing, baths and so forth. Their skin is very pale and dry, needing lotion.
....
l. The Respondent Father is not employed.
m. The Respondent Mother is employed at AW–NC as a factory worker. She works from 6:00 a.m. until [between] 2:30 p.m. [and] 6:00 p.m. She has been employed for approximately ten months.
n. The Respondent Mother reports she made the van payment for the first time in several months a few weeks ago. She reports the van is not drivable because the finance company turned the car off. [sic]
o. The Respondent Mother reports she did not have enough money to maintain a household since becoming a permanent employee on February 18, 2013.
Based upon these and other findings, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that the juveniles were "neglected" as defined by N.C.G.S. § 7B–101(15) and that removal of the children from parental custody was in the children's best interests. The parents were ordered to cooperate with their out-of-home family service case plans, attend and participate in mental health assessments, submit to and comply with random drug screenings, pay child support, obtain or maintain employment, participate in visitation, maintain weekly contact with a social worker, and enroll in domestic violence counseling. In addition, the trial court approved placement of the children with their maternal grandmother.
Following subsequent review and permanency planning hearings, the trial court filed an order on 18 November 2013 reporting the parents' general lack of progress in meeting the goals outlined in their case plans, including that they were living in motels, maintaining only sporadic contact with social workers, and not participating consistently in visitation with the children. The order also reported that although respondent had maintained a full-time job, she could not account for how her money was being spent and had not
"provide[d] the agency with a budgeting plan that can account for where the funds coming into the household go," as the trial court had ordered. The trial court endorsed reunification as the primary plan, ordered continued placement with the maternal grandmother, and again ordered that the parents address the problems that were preventing reunification.
After further proceedings on 18 December 2013, the trial court changed its recommendation for the primary plan for the juveniles to adoption, noting the parents' continued failure to comply with their case plans. Specifically, the trial court found that respondent had failed to create a budgeting plan, obtain appropriate housing, or follow the recommendation for treatment of her "social phobia," as diagnosed in her mental health assessment. In addition, the trial court found the status of respondent's required participation in domestic violence courses to be "[u]nknown," stating that although respondent-mother "has indicated in the past that she is taking part," she had "not provided documentation or the location" where the courses were taking place. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that "the parents have acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected rights" by previously allowing "the children to reside in an injurious environment" and thereafter failing to take prescribed measures to allow the juveniles to safely "return to or be
in their care." The order contained a further conclusion that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest.
DSS filed a motion for termination of parental rights on 11 March 2014, and the hearing took place over the course of four days in August and September 2014. On 29 September 2014 the trial court filed an order terminating both parents' parental rights based upon neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B–1111(a)(1), and based upon a finding that they willfully left the juveniles in foster care for more than twelve months without making sufficient progress in correcting the conditions that led to removal, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 7B–1111(a)(2).1 The findings in the order summarized the procedural history of the case and some information contained in previous orders, including the findings in the May 2013 adjudication order based upon the stipulations of the parties. The trial court also made a number of findings regarding its ongoing concerns:
38. Since the removal of the juveniles, the parents have resided at three different addresses in Alamance County, North Carolina. They were evicted from all three residence[s] for nonpayment of rent.
39. The evictions took place for nonpayment of rent despite the fact that, at times during residing at the residences, the parents were employed making between $11.00 and $13.00 an hour for 40–60 hours a week. The employment of the parents was not consistent.
....
45. The Respondent Mother entered into and was court ordered to comply with [an] out-of-home family services agreement. She was to obtain a mental health assessment. She did an initial assessment which indicated diagnoses of social phobia and cannabis dependency full remission. She did not seek out services to address social phobia.
46. The Respondent Mother obtained a second mental health assessment and did answer questions but was not completely truthful reporting stressors in her life. At
no point did she get treatment for social phobia. Initially, she was asked to sign releases and did not, but later did.
....
48. The Respondent Mother was to obtain and maintain appropriate housing. She did obtain three different homes, and, at times, resided with friends in Durham. She was not stable, would pay rent for one month but not subsequently without good reason and she does not currently have appropriate housing as she is residing at Allied Churches emergency shelter.
49. The Respondent Mother was to obtain and maintain employment. She was employed at AW working 65 hours a week
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re G.B., No. 438A19
...review applies on appeal when determining if termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child," citing In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 842, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016). However, respondent-mother contends that "this Court [should] apply a de novo standard of review for the legal ......
-
In re B.B., 24A21
...had not provided the juveniles with any gifts, notes, letters, or necessities since they entered into DSS's custody. See In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (stating that it is the trial court's duty to consider all the evidence, pass upon the credibility of the witnesse......
-
In re J.A.J., 269A21
...has the duty to determine the weight and veracity of evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. E.g., In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016). It was reasonable for the trial court to find that respondent-father had never called Karl or provided him with a......
-
In re G.G.M., Nos. 248A20
...inferences to be drawn therefrom.’ " In re A.R.A. , 373 N.C. at 196, 835 S.E.2d 417 (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) ). Because "the trial court is uniquely situated to make this credibility determination ... appellate courts may not ......
-
In re G.B., No. 438A19
...review applies on appeal when determining if termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child," citing In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 842, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016). However, respondent-mother contends that "this Court [should] apply a de novo standard of review for the legal ......
-
In re B.B., 24A21
...had not provided the juveniles with any gifts, notes, letters, or necessities since they entered into DSS's custody. See In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (stating that it is the trial court's duty to consider all the evidence, pass upon the credibility of the witnesse......
-
In re J.A.J., 269A21
...has the duty to determine the weight and veracity of evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. E.g., In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016). It was reasonable for the trial court to find that respondent-father had never called Karl or provided him with a......
-
In re G.G.M., Nos. 248A20
...inferences to be drawn therefrom.’ " In re A.R.A. , 373 N.C. at 196, 835 S.E.2d 417 (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) ). Because "the trial court is uniquely situated to make this credibility determination ... appellate courts may not ......