In re A.H.G.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA21-745 |
| Citation | 875 S.E.2d 593 |
| Parties | In the MATTERS OF: A.H.G., O.H.G., J.D.H.G. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Garron T. Michael, for Petitioner-Appellee New Hanover County Department of Social Services.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Winston-Salem, by Carrie A. Hanger, for Guardian ad Litem.
Parent Defender Wendy C. Sotolongo, by Assistant Parent Defender Jacky Brammer, for Respondent-Appellant Mother.
¶ 1 Respondent-Mother ("Mother") appeals from an order terminating her parental rights after her children had been removed from her care and adjudicated neglected or neglected and dependent on three separate occasions between 6 July 2015 and 25 November 2019. She challenges the trial court's grounds for termination, arguing that (1) she had made reasonable progress in correcting the conditions of neglect which led to her children's removal, and (2) the record lacked clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of a likelihood of future neglect. In addition, Mother asserts the trial court abused its discretion in determining termination was in the best interests of the children because it failed to make certain relevant findings. After careful review of the record, we affirm the order of the trial court.
¶ 2 The record below discloses the following:
¶ 3 On 6 July 2015, the New Hanover County Department of Social Services ("DSS") filed petitions alleging Jorge and Oscar,1 then ages three and one, respectively, were neglected and dependent based, in large part, upon Mother's inability to care for her children because of her abuse of alcohol. The trial court placed the children in nonsecure custody of DSS. On 11 September 2015, the trial court adjudicated Oscar and Jorge neglected and dependent and determined it was in their best interest to remain in DSS custody. After conducting a review hearing, on 28 April 2016, the trial court returned legal custody of the children to Mother because she had demonstrated her ability to provide a safe and stable home, maintained employment, consistently completed negative drug and alcohol screens, and participated in weekly individual therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") meetings.
¶ 4 On 20 November 2017, DSS filed a second petition alleging Oscar and Jorge were neglected because of Mother's inappropriate discipline and continued substance abuse. The children were again placed in the nonsecure custody of DSS. On 14 February 2018, the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and ordered that DSS maintain legal custody and placement responsibility for the children. After the review hearing, on 28 March 2018, the trial court ordered the children to remain in the custody of DSS.
¶ 5 Mother's third child, Angel,2 was born in January 2019. In June 2019, Oscar and Jorge returned to Mother's care in a trial home placement. Jorge, who had previously engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with Oscar, was no longer displaying such behavior. Both boys had successfully completed therapy. After a permanency planning hearing in October 2019 and with the agreement of all parties, the trial court determined Mother had "demonstrated her ability to provide a safe and stable home," "maintained independent housing and verifiable employment," was "participating in individual therapy and family therapy," was "attending Alcoholic Anonymous meetings," "maintained her sobriety," and "all of [the boys] needs are being met." As a result, the trial court granted Mother custody of Oscar and Jorge.
¶ 6 One month later, Mother was present in the room when Oscar and Jorge again engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior. In response, she beat both children with a belt, leaving significant marks and bruises. On 25 November 2019, DSS filed a third petition alleging all three children, Oscar, Jorge, and Angel, were abused, neglected, and dependent. An order for nonsecure custody was entered the same day. On 11 February 2020, the children were adjudicated neglected and dependent. Oscar and Angel were placed in a foster home together, while Jorge was placed in a separate foster home because of his sexually inappropriate behavior.3
¶ 7 Mother entered into a case plan with DSS and agreed to maintain housing and employment, engage in parent education, submit to random drug and alcohol screens, and complete a "Comprehensive Clinical Assessment." She attended 14 out of 20 therapy sessions in 2020, completed the clinical assessment, and participated in AA meetings. Mother had housing and a job. She remained sober and submitted to random drug screens. During this time, Mother consistently participated in supervised visits with her children, "the quality of the visits [ ] improved," "the children [were] respectful towards one another and [Mother]," and Mother "engage[d] in age and developmentally appropriate play."
¶ 8 On 15 March 2021, DSS petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2021). The petition alleged: (1) the children had been neglected and there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect, and (2) the children had been in placement outside the home for more than twelve months and Mother had not made reasonable progress, under the circumstances, to correct the conditions which led to removal. The matter came before the juvenile court in New Hanover County on 12 July, 16 August, and 20 August 2021. Mother, her therapist, Ana Blaney ("Ms. Blaney"), and a DSS social worker, Samantha Muse ("Ms. Muse"), testified. Considering the best interests of the children, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on 14 September 2021. Mother appealed.
¶ 9 We review a trial court's adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency to determine whether there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. See In re Z.J.W. , 376 N.C. 760, 2021-NCSC-13, ¶14, 855 S.E.2d 142. The clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard is "greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases." In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 109-10, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984). "Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal." In re S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484, 2021-NCSC-101, ¶ 9, 861 S.E.2d 834 (citation omitted). We review the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, however, solely for abuse of discretion. In re S.D.C. , 2022-NCSC-55, ¶ 11, 871 S.E.2d 486. A trial court abuses its discretion when its "ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." In re A.A. , 2022-NCSC-66, ¶ 26, 873 S.E.2d 496 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
¶ 10 Mother asserts the trial court erred in determining she had not made reasonable progress on her case plan as a ground for terminating her parental rights. We disagree.
¶ 11 Pursuant to our General Statutes, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights based on findings that:
§ 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). For termination under Subsection 7B-1111(a)(1), a neglected juvenile is one whose parent, caretaker, or guardian does any of the following:
¶ 12 To adjudicate termination of parental rights pursuant to Subsection 7B-1111(a)(2), a parent must willfully fail to make reasonable progress under the circumstances. See In re Z.A.M. , 374 N.C. 88, 95, 839 S.E.2d 792, 797 (2020). "[P]erfection is not required." In re S.D. , 243 N.C. App. 65, 73, 776 S.E.2d 862, 867 (2015). Instead, "[w]illfulness is established when the respondent had the ability to show reasonable progress, but was unwilling to make the effort." In re McMillon , 143 N.C. App. 402, 410, 546 S.E.2d 169, 175 (2001). We evaluate the "nature and extent" of the parent's reasonable progress "for the duration leading up to the hearing on the motion or petition to terminate parental rights." In re A.C.F. , 176 N.C. App. 520, 528, 626 S.E.2d 729, 735 (2006).
¶ 13 Here, in a disposition order from February 2020, the trial court ordered Mother to comply with her case plan and complete a clinical assessment, follow the corresponding recommendations, submit to random drug screens, engage in parenting classes, and maintain housing and employment. Mother argues she completed or made progress on each element and she challenges several findings of fact related to her case plan progress as unsupported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. We address them, categorically, in turn.
¶ 14 First, Mother challenges several findings about her participation in therapy and parenting education classes:
To continue reading
Request your trial