In re K.N.K.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 231A19,231A19 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: K.N.K. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
No brief for petitioner-appellee mother.
Leslie Rawls, Charlotte, for respondent-appellant father.
Respondent, father of the minor child K.N.K. (Kathy),1 appeals from the trial court's order granting the petition filed by the child's mother (petitioner) for the termination of respondent-father's parental rights. We affirm.
Petitioner and respondent were involved in a relationship from 2010 to 2012 but never married. Kathy was born in December 2011 and has lived with petitioner in Buncombe County, North Carolina since birth. On 25 August 2014, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the District Court in Buncombe County, seeking joint legal custody of Kathy and visitation. Petitioner obtained a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against respondent on 27 August 2014 that continued through 12 May 2018; since 12 May 2015, that order has included Kathy as well, excepting only court ordered supervised visitation with respondent.2 Petitioner filed an answer in the custody matter on 28 October 2014, requesting sole custody of Kathy and attorney's fees.
On the morning of the custody hearing, respondent advised the court he was abandoning his claim for joint custody of Kathy. On 1 June 2015, the trial court awarded petitioner "sole care, custody and control" of Kathy, finding that respondent "failed to take his role and responsibility as a parent of the minor child seriously." The court granted respondent twice monthly supervised visitation with Kathy at the Mediation Center through its Family Visitation Program and invited respondent to "file the appropriate motion before this Court" to modify the order once he "demonstrated the ability to be consistent with the visits" and "demonstrate[d] that he is stable and operating at a higher maturity level ...." Respondent was also ordered to pay $4,915.70 in attorney's fees to petitioner's counsel.
On 11 September 2017, petitioner filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. See N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1100, -1104 (2019). After hearing evidence over four dates between 9 July 2018 and 14 November 2018, the trial court entered an order terminating respondent's parental rights on 18 March 2019. In doing so, the court concluded respondent had willfully abandoned Kathy within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (2019), and such abandonment justified termination. Based on its adjudication, the court proceeded to the dispositional stage of the proceeding under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2019) and determined it was in Kathy's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights. Respondent appealed. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) (2019).
Respondent claims the trial court's findings do not support its adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7), which authorizes the termination of parental rights if "[t]he parent has willfully abandoned the juvenile for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the petition." Respondent also claims the trial court abused its discretion at the dispositional stage of the proceeding by concluding Kathy's best interest would be served by terminating his parental rights.
"We review a trial court's adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 ‘to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.’ "
In re E.H.P. , 372 N.C. 388, 392, 831 S.E.2d 49, 52 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246, 253 (1984) ); see also N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) (2019). Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are "binding on appeal." In re Z.L.W. , 372 N.C. 432, 437, 831 S.E.2d 62, 65 (2019). "Moreover, we review only those [challenged] findings necessary to support the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights." In re T.N.H. , 372 N.C. 403, 407, 831 S.E.2d 54, 58–59 (2019) ; accord In re A.R.A. , 373 N.C. 190, 195, 835 S.E.2d 417, 421 (2019) ().
A court may terminate parental rights if "[t]he parent has willfully abandoned the juvenile for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the petition." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7).
"Abandonment implies conduct on the part of the parent which manifests a willful determination to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child." In re Young , 346 N.C. [244,] 251, 485 S.E.2d [612,] 617 [1997] (citation omitted). "[I]f a parent withholds his presence, his love, his care, the opportunity to display filial affection, and willfully neglects to lend support and maintenance, such parent relinquishes all parental claims and abandons the child." Pratt v. Bishop , 257 N.C. 486, 501, 126 S.E.2d 597, 608 (1962) (citation omitted).
In re N.D.A. , 373 N.C. 71, 77, 833 S.E.2d 768, 773 (2019) (alteration in original). The willfulness of a parent's actions is a question of fact for the trial court. See Pratt , 257 N.C. at 501, 126 S.E.2d at 608 ; see also Stancill v. Stancill , 241 N.C. App. 529, 531, 773 S.E.2d 890, 892 (2015) . " ‘Intent’ and ‘wilful[l]ness’ are mental emotions and attitudes and are seldom capable of direct proof; they must ordinarily be proven by circumstances from which they may be inferred ...."
State v. Arnold , 264 N.C. 348, 349, 141 S.E.2d 473, 474 (1965). "[A]lthough the trial court may consider a parent's conduct outside the six-month window in evaluating a parent's credibility and intentions, the ‘determinative’ period for adjudicating willful abandonment is the six consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition." In re N.D.A. , 373 N.C. at 77, 833 S.E.2d at 773 (quoting In re D.E.M. , 257 N.C. App. 618, 619, 810 S.E.2d 375, 378 (2018) ).
Here petitioner filed her petition in this case on 11 September 2017. Therefore, respondent's conduct toward Kathy in the period from 11 March 2017 to 11 September 2017 is at issue. See Young , 346 N.C. at 251, 485 S.E.2d at 617. The trial court found that, during the determinative period, respondent "has withheld his presence, his love and care, and foregone his opportunities to display his filial affection for the minor child since 2014," and respondent "did have the settled intent to forego all parental responsibility and in fact did forego all of those responsibilities since at least 2014." In concluding respondent "has abandoned the minor child for at least six (6) months preceding the filing of the Petition in this matter consistent with N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)," the court also expressly found respondent's "conduct was intentional and willful and evinced a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all claims to the minor child." This ultimate, dispositive finding must be supported by the evidence and by the evidentiary facts found by the trial court. See In re N.D.A. , 373 N.C. at 76–77, 833 S.E.2d at 773.
The trial court's adjudicatory findings show that, from 2014 until the petition's filing date, respondent had no contact or communication of any kind with Kathy; provided no financial support for Kathy;3 sent Kathy no cards, gifts, or letters; and neither attended nor attempted to attend any of Kathy's medical appointments, educational functions, or extracurricular activities. Moreover, despite having been awarded twice monthly visitation in the 1 June 2016 custody order, respondent did not attend a single visit during the determinative time period; nor did respondent return to court to attempt to modify the terms of the custody order. The trial court also found that respondent "has always had the ability to visit the minor child, and knowingly and willing[ly] chose not to visit the minor child" and "not to have any contact with the minor child."
The trial court's findings show respondent's complete lack of involvement with Kathy, not only during the determinative six-month period, but dating back to 2014. We hold these facts support the court's ultimate findings that respondent acted willfully and with an intention to forego his parental responsibilities to Kathy. Having reviewed the trial court's evidentiary findings, we find no merit to respondent's arguments challenging the court's ultimate findings and conclusion that, by withholding his presence, love, care, and filial affection from Kathy, he willfully abandoned the minor child during the six months preceding petitioner's filing of the petition. Respondent's actions both prior to and during the determinative six-month period support a reasonable inference of willfulness for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7). See In re E.H.P. , 372 N.C. at 394, 831 S.E.2d at 53.
While respondent challenges several of the court's evidentiary findings, each of these contested findings concern his actions outside the six-month period from 11 March 2017 to 11 September 2017. The evidence shows respondent began attending visitations at the Mediation Center on 6 January 2018, well outside the relevant time period. After his second hour-long visit with Kathy on 20 January 2018, respondent "discontinued" his participation in the Family Visitation Program and did not resume visitations until 28 April 2018.4 Respondent's 28 April 2018 visitation was cancelled because he attempted to bring his twelve-year-old daughter to the visit without permission. Thereafter and up to the time of the termination hearing, respondent attended all but two of his scheduled visitations, except for two visits cancelled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re J.A.J.
- In re G.G.M.
- In re M.T.
- In re H.A.J.