In re H.R.S.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2022
• Docket Number: 227A21
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: H.R.S.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

380 N.C. 728

869 S.E.2d 655

In the MATTER OF: H.R.S.

No. 227A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 18, 2022

Jennifer Oakley Michaud, for petitioner-appellee Stokes County Department of Social Services.

James N. Freeman Jr., Elkin, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

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

NEWBY, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights¹ to H.R.S. (Heather).² After careful review, we affirm the trial court's orders.

¶ 2 Heather was born on 15 August 2017 in Forsyth County. On 10 April 2019, the Stokes County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a child protective services report regarding Heather due to a domestic violence incident and concerns regarding respondent's substance abuse. At the time, respondent and Heather lived in the home of Heather's maternal grandparents with several relatives. In the days leading up to the incident, respondent "exhibited signs of hallucinations"—claiming "that she was speaking with a deceased individual"—and also "exhibited paranoia that those in the home were going to injure her." On 10 April 2019, respondent came home with Heather and appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The maternal great-grandmother came outside and asked respondent to leave. Ignoring the maternal great-grandmother, respondent went inside and stabbed the maternal grandfather repeatedly. Respondent was arrested and charged with attempted first-degree murder and felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.

¶ 3 That same day, the social worker assigned to Heather's case learned that respondent did not want Heather to remain in the home with the maternal grandparents. Respondent wanted Heather to be placed with Heather's paternal grandparents. After an investigation, however, the social worker determined that Heather's paternal grandparents could not serve as a placement due to their criminal history. That day, the social worker placed Heather with her maternal uncle; Heather and her maternal uncle were to reside at a neighbor's home.

¶ 4 On 11 April 2019, the social worker contacted Heather's father, who was incarcerated at the Forsyth County Jail.³ Heather's father was concerned because he was "aware of [respondent] and [Heather's maternal uncle] using [m]ethamphetamines together at the neighbor's home." DSS then filed a juvenile petition alleging that Heather was a neglected juvenile because she "live[d] in an environment injurious to [her] welfare."⁴ The trial court entered a nonsecure custody order which gave custody of Heather to DSS and authorized her placement with a foster parent. Thus, Heather was removed from the care of her maternal uncle on 11 April 2019 and placed in a foster home. On 16 April 2019, the trial court ordered DSS to perform a kinship assessment on Heather's maternal great-aunt and great-uncle; Heather was placed with them on 22 April 2019.

¶ 5 Over the next month, DSS continued working with respondent's family to find an appropriate relative placement. The maternal grandparents "completed a home study in May [of 2019] and were in the process of being considered for placement." Heather's maternal grandfather ultimately refused to submit to a hair follicle test and told the social worker on 31 May 2019 that he and the maternal grandmother "wished to withdraw from consideration of their home as a potential placement." After a social worker requested that Heather's maternal uncle undergo a drug screen, he also withdrew from consideration the same day. As noted in a DSS court report filed on 29 July 2019,

[d]uring the course of [31 May 2019], [Heather's] current placement provider was having chest pains and admitted into the hospital. They requested respite care for [Heather] over the weekend. The following Monday, [the social worker] took [Heather] to the pediatrician where she was diagnosed with the viral infection of hand[,] foo[t,] and mouth. [The social worker] ... then traveled to [Heather's] maternal great[-]aunt and [great-]uncle's home to discuss [the] most recent decisions by [Heather's maternal uncle]. Both adults were visibly upset while expressing their love for [Heather] and wanting what is best for her. The placement providers were upfront and honest in the beginning [of the placement] about their inabilities to do this long term. [Heather's maternal great-aunt and great-uncle] were adamant they only wanted what was best for [Heather] and that being with a foster parent was in her best interest.

Having already determined that Heather's paternal grandparents were not an appropriate placement, DSS returned Heather to her previous foster placement on 31 May 2019. Heather remained in this placement throughout the remainder of the proceedings.

¶ 6 While incarcerated, respondent was charged with assault on a government official and resisting a public officer and was placed on suicide watch. After the trial court held a hearing regarding the juvenile petition on 25 July 2019, the trial court found that Heather was a neglected juvenile because she "was exposed to substance abuse and therefore lived in an environment injurious to her welfare." The trial court set the permanent plan for Heather as reunification with her parents, with a concurrent plan of adoption. The trial court concluded that visitation with respondent was "not in [Heather]’s best interests, as [respondent] remain[ed] incarcerated." Moreover, the trial court ordered respondent to "enter into a case plan and comply with its terms." Respondent entered into her case plan on 30 January 2020. On 21 September 2019, respondent was convicted of assault on a government official and resisting a public officer. On 22 October 2019, respondent was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Respondent will remain in prison until at least October of 2023.

¶ 7 K.T.,⁵ a cousin of Heather's father, and her husband J.T. became involved in the case in January of 2020. K.T. and J.T. live in Hagerstown, Maryland, in a three-bedroom ranch house on at least an acre of land. J.T. is a sergeant with the Maryland State Police; he is a shift commander responsible for other troopers. On 1 January 2020, several months after Heather was returned to her foster placement, K.T. and J.T. learned from a relative that Heather was in DSS custody; Heather's father did not initially inform them. That day, K.T. called DSS several times but was unable to make contact because DSS was closed. During January and February of 2020, K.T. and J.T. spoke with DSS employees on the phone and visited North Carolina. DSS informed K.T. and J.T. that DSS was not "seeking any placement with family outside the state because the primary goal was supposed to be reunification." After March of 2020, K.T. and J.T. did not speak with DSS again for several months. In May of 2020, while visiting North Carolina, K.T. spoke with Heather's father, who was "very optimistic that he was getting [Heather] back at that time."

¶ 8 After a review hearing on 16 July 2020, the trial court changed Heather's primary permanent plan to termination of parental rights and adoption, with a secondary plan of reunification. DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent's parental rights on 17 September 2020 on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the juvenile in foster care while failing to make reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6) (2021). On 22 December 2020, Heather's father filed a "Motion for Expedited Inquiry of Placement" which requested the trial court to "[o]rder DSS to complete an expedited inquiry into placement with" Heather's paternal grandmother or K.T. In its order denying the father's motion, the trial court found:

6. The juvenile has never met [K.T.], who resides in Maryland. Placement with [Heather's paternal grandmother] was evaluated and determined to be against [Heather's] best interests, earlier in the case.

....

8. [K.T.] lives in Maryland, and an Interstate Compact Home Study would be required to investigate her suitability for placement. Because of the affinity between [K.T.] and the juvenile, the case does not qualify for an expedited home study.

....

12. [K.T. and J.T.] did not contact the Stokes [County] Department of Social Services prior to the initial disposition of the case. The father contacted the Stokes [County] Department of Social Services regarding [K.T. and J.T. on] 12/9/2020 for the first time.

The trial court therefore concluded that "[i]t is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile to be taken from her foster home, where she has lived for 20 months, and placed with relatives." Thus, the trial court denied the father's motion.

¶ 9 The motion to terminate respondent's parental rights was heard on 10 February 2021 and 26 February 2021. In a written order entered on 28 April 2021, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). In a separate written order entered the same day, the trial court concluded it was in Heather's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights. Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent appeals.

¶ 10 A termination of parental rights proceeding consists of an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2021); In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 110, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984). Respondent does not challenge the grounds for termination adjudicated by the trial court under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a), nor does respondent challenge the findings of fact in the trial court's disposition order. Rather, respondent argues the trial court erred by concluding that terminating her parental rights was in Heather's best interests.

¶ 11 "A trial court's determination concerning whether termination of parental rights...