In re J.R.F.
| Decision Date | 11 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. 36A21,36A21 |
| Citation | 867 S.E.2d 870 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: J.R.F. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Jane R. Thompson, for petitioner-appellee New Hanover County Department of Social Services.
Sophie Goodman, Charlotte, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-appellant father.
¶ 1 Respondent-father appeals from a trial court's order terminating his parental rights to J.R.F. (Ronnie1 ), a minor child born in February 2014. Respondent-father challenges the two grounds for termination found by the trial court, as well as the trial court's conclusion that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in Ronnie's best interests. We conclude that at least one of the grounds found by the trial court for the termination of respondent-father's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Ronnie's best interests would be served by the termination of respondent-father's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court entered on 16 November 2020 which terminated the parental rights of respondent-father.
¶ 2 Petitioner New Hanover County Department of Social Services (DSS) began working with Ronnie's family in May 20182 by addressing his parents’ issues with substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, parenting, and housing stability. These issues continued without improvement despite DSS's involvement, prompting DSS to file a juvenile petition on 12 October 2018 which alleged that Ronnie was a neglected juvenile. The petition averred that respondent-father had violated multiple safety plans and displayed a deficit of basic parenting skills. The petition also alleged that respondent-father tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamines, continued to engage in mutual domestic violence incidents with Ronnie's mother, and suffered from untreated bipolar disorder. At the time that the petition was filed, Ronnie was living with his mother and half-siblings on a boat, which DSS described as "cluttered and unsafe for children." Ronnie had not received his recommended vaccinations since 2016, which prevented him from being placed in daycare or preschool. Instead, he was left unattended in the boatyard garage, where he had "access to multiple dangerous chemicals and tools" while his mother worked. The trial court awarded nonsecure custody to DSS on the same day that the agency filed the neglect petition.
¶ 3 The petition came on for hearing on 28 November 2018 during which the parents, represented by counsel, stipulated to the facts asserted by DSS in the agency's neglect petition. Based on these stipulations, the trial court adjudicated Ronnie as a neglected juvenile by way of an order entered on 27 December 2018. In the dispositional portion of its order, the trial court ordered respondent-father to: (1) comply with the terms of his Family Services Agreement; (2) complete a Comprehensive Clinical Assessment and comply with any recommendations; (3) execute a release with his service providers on behalf of DSS and Ronnie's guardian ad litem; (4) submit to random drug screens; (5) complete a domestic violence assessment and comply with any recommendations; (6) complete an anger management program; and (7) maintain stable housing and verifiable income.
¶ 4 The first permanency planning hearing occurred on 11 September 2019. In its resultant order from that hearing, the trial court made findings reflecting mixed progress on the part of respondent-father. While respondent-father participated in two Family Services Agreement meetings, participated in mental health and parenting classes, and completed an intake assessment with the Domestic Violence Offender Program, he also admitted that he had slapped Ronnie's mother and poked her with a broom, ingested Suboxone and methamphetamines, missed three drug screens, and tested positive for buprenorphine and buprenorphine metabolite after another drug screen, and that he was unemployed and living with friends. The trial court set the primary permanent plan as reunification with a secondary plan of guardianship, and directed respondent-father to begin or continue the tasks ordered in its 27 December 2018 order.
¶ 5 The next permanency planning hearing occurred on 8 January 2020, after which the trial court changed the primary plan to adoption with a secondary plan of reunification in an order entered two weeks later. In that order, the trial court found that respondent-father was not making adequate progress on his case plan within a reasonable amount of time. Respondent-father had not verified his employment and was only periodically attending therapy that was recommended pursuant to a Comprehensive Clinical Assessment during which respondent-father displayed a lack of candor. Although respondent-father had obtained negative results on several drug screens since September of 2019, he had refused two drug screens in October and November 2019 and had admitted on 22 November 2019 to using illicit substances. Respondent-father had obtained independent housing, but the house was in need of repairs and was unsafe for children.
¶ 6 On 4 February 2020, DSS filed a petition to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to Ronnie, asserting two grounds for termination: (1) respondent-father had neglected Ronnie and there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if Ronnie was returned to respondent-father's custody pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) ; and (2) respondent-father had willfully left Ronnie in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions leading to the child's removal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2).
¶ 7 The termination petition was heard over the course of five separate sessions during September and October 2020 where the trial court received testimony from social workers, treatment providers, character witnesses, and respondent-father himself. On 16 November 2020, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of respondent-father. The trial court concluded that both grounds for termination alleged by DSS existed and that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in Ronnie's best interests. Respondent-father appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to this Court.3 N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1) (2019) (repealed by S.L. 2021-18, § 2 (eff. 1 July 2021)).
In re A.M. , 377 N.C. 220, 2021-NCSC-42, ¶ 13, 856 S.E.2d 801. In reviewing a trial court's actions at the adjudicatory stage, this Court must "determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law" that one or more grounds for termination exist. In re E.H.P. , 372 N.C. 388, 392, 831 S.E.2d 49 (2019). If clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports a trial court's findings which support its determination as to the existence of a particular ground for termination of a respondent's parental rights, the resulting adjudication of the ground for termination will be affirmed. Id. Unchallenged findings are "deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019). The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19, 832 S.E.2d 692 (2019).
¶ 9 In our consideration of the dispositional stage, we review the trial court's assessment of a child's best interests for an abuse of discretion. The court's determination is subject to reversal only if it is "manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." In re T.L.H. , 368 N.C. 101, 107, 772 S.E.2d 451 (2015) (quoting State v. Hennis , 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523 (1988) ).
¶ 10 Respondent-father first challenges the two grounds for termination which were found to exist by the trial court. We begin by examining whether the trial court erred in deciding that respondent-father's rights were subject to termination based on neglect by evaluating whether that conclusion was supported by findings of fact based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence as reflected in the trial court's order.
¶ 11 The North Carolina General Statutes provide that a respondent-parent's rights to a child may be terminated if the respondent-parent neglects the child such that the child meets the statutory definition of a "neglected juvenile." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019). A neglected juvenile, in relevant part, is one "whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; ... or who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile's welfare." N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15) (2019).
Termination of parental rights based upon this statutory ground requires a showing of neglect at the time of the termination hearing or, if the child has been separated from the parent for a long period of time, there must be a showing of a likelihood of future neglect by the parent. When determining whether such future neglect is likely,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.D.O.
...and the presence of the likelihood of future neglect by the parent if the child were to be returned to the parent's care. In re J.R.F. , 380 N.C. 43, 2022-NCSC-5, ¶ 11, 867 S.E.2d 870.Evidence of neglect by a parent prior to losing custody of a child — including an adjudication of such negl......
- In re S.G.S.
-
In re
...Guardian ad Litem in the case at bar, are binding on appeal "notwithstanding evidence to the contrary." In re J.R.F. , 2022-NCSC-5, ¶ 34, 867 S.E.2d 870.¶ 14 Respondent-father also notes that the testimony of the children's mother could not support the trial court's findings related to his ......
- In re K.M.S.