In re L.D.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2022
• Docket Number: 155A21
• Citation: 380 N.C. 766,869 S.E.2d 667
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: L.D., A.D.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

380 N.C. 766

869 S.E.2d 667

In the MATTER OF: L.D., A.D.

No. 155A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 18, 2022

Quintin Byrd, Fayetteville, for petitioner-appellee Scotland County Department of Social Services.

Michelle FormyDuval Lynch, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Wendy C. Sotolongo, Parent Defender, and Jacky Brammer, Assistant Parent Defender, for respondent-appellant mother.

NEWBY, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent, the mother of L.D. (Larry) and A.D. (Amy),¹ appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights. After careful review, we affirm.

¶ 2 Larry was born on 16 November 2016.² The Scotland County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report on 7 February 2018 that Larry's eleven-week-old sibling, Lisa, was admitted into the emergency room at Scotland Memorial Hospital. She was diagnosed with acute bleeding

on the brain and a subdural hematoma. Lisa also had fractures on her ribs, which were healing, along with other injuries, including a circular burn the size of a cigarette on her lower right leg. Respondent and the father³ claimed that Lisa was injured by falling off the couch. Medical professionals at the hospital, however, believed this explanation was "inconsistent with the type of injuries that [Lisa] ha[d] sustained." Later testing "revealed retinal hemorrhaging in both eyes, indicative of Shaken Baby Syndrome

." On 9 February 2018, DSS filed a petition alleging that Larry was a neglected juvenile. Larry was initially placed in kinship care with his maternal grandmother.

¶ 3 On 16 February 2018, the trial court entered an order granting DSS nonsecure custody of Larry. That same day, DSS filed an amended juvenile petition adding allegations that the father had shaken Lisa and that he was incarcerated on charges of felonious child abuse. DSS further alleged that Larry's maternal grandmother "was allowing [Larry to have] contact with the respondent mother in violation of a safety assessment," and that respondent was incarcerated on charges of misdemeanor larceny and shoplifting. Respondent tested positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, and methadone on 23 March, 9 April, and 11 June 2018. Respondent refused drug screens on 23 April, 3 May, 30 May, 27 June, and 27 July 2018. On 13 June 2018, respondent "made a case plan with DSS," but did not sign it. That plan

found that the issues that needed to be addressed were substance abuse and recommended treatment, appropriate supervision and discipline, including parenting classes, establishing a stable home and employment, cooperating with [DSS], and maintaining contact with [DSS] at least once per week, and visiting the juvenile a[nd] supporting placement of the juvenile.

¶ 4 Amy was then born on 7 October 2018; her father is the same as Larry's father. On 9 October 2018, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging that Amy was neglected and obtained nonsecure custody of Amy. The petition alleged that Amy tested positive for cocaine at birth and respondent tested positive for cocaine and methadone when Amy was born. Respondent admitted to using cocaine two days before the delivery. DSS also alleged respondent "ha[d] not been compliant with completing needs identified on her case plan, and continue[d] to test positive for illegal substances."

¶ 5 Following a hearing on 18 October 2018, the trial court determined with the parties’ consent that Larry was neglected. This determination was memorialized in an adjudication order entered on 25 February 2019 in which respondent stipulated to facts consistent with the allegations in DSS's amended petition. In a separate disposition order, the trial court directed that Larry remain in DSS custody.

¶ 6 Following a hearing on 10 January 2019, the trial court entered a second consent adjudication order on 25 February 2019 determining that Amy was neglected. The court also found in a separate disposition order that respondent had failed to address any of the issues identified in her case plan. Respondent had again tested positive for cocaine on 4 January 2019. The trial court ruled that further reunification efforts would be unsuccessful and inconsistent with Amy's needs based on Lisa's non-accidental injuries and the parents’ failure to address the issues that led to Amy's removal. The trial court ordered that Amy remain in DSS custody and relieved DSS of further reunification efforts. The court also discontinued respondent's visits with Amy pending guidance from a therapist about the appropriateness of visitation. After a review hearing on 10 January 2019, the trial court entered a review order in Larry's case on 25 February 2019. The trial court found reunification efforts would also be unsuccessful and inconsistent with Larry's needs. The trial court ordered that Larry remain in DSS custody, relieved DSS of further reunification efforts, and discontinued respondent's visits with Larry.

¶ 7 Following a permanency planning hearing on 7 February 2019, the trial court entered orders on 27 February 2019 setting the permanent plan for the children as custody with a relative with a concurrent plan of reunification. The trial court held another permanency planning hearing on 28 March 2019 and entered review orders on 6 June 2019. The trial court found that respondent was enrolled at the Black Mountain inpatient substance abuse treatment center and was scheduled to complete the program in May 2019. The trial court further found that respondent still was not employed, did not have stable housing, and had not enrolled in parenting classes. The trial court changed the permanent plan to adoption with a concurrent plan of reunification and ordered DSS to proceed with the plan.

¶ 8 The trial court held another permanency planning hearing on 30 May 2019 and entered review orders on 24 June 2019. The trial court found that respondent completed the Black Mountain program on 3 May 2019 but had not participated in any additional substance abuse treatment. Respondent was pregnant with another child as the possible result of her continuing relationship with the father, and she had not contacted DSS. The trial court found that respondent "spent the Memorial Day Weekend with [the father] at a hotel in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

¶ 9 After the next permanency planning hearing on 25 July 2019, in orders entered on 28 August 2019, the trial court found that "[s]ince the last permanency planning hearing, the respondent mother has had no contact with DSS" and was not present for the hearing. The trial court also found that respondent had not provided any financial support for the children. The trial court again ordered that respondent not have visitation with the children "due to the severity of injuries suffered by the juvenile's sibling" and because respondent was "failing to successfully address the issues which led to removal." Following a permanency planning hearing on 19 December 2019, the trial court entered orders finding that respondent still had no contact with DSS; had not provided financial support for her children; had given birth to Alex in October of 2019, who tested positive for cocaine; and was "residing in a Drug Addiction Treatment Center in Smithfield, North Carolina." The court ordered DSS "to proceed with [the] permanent plan" of adoption for both children.

¶ 10 On 24 January 2020, DSS filed petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights to Larry and Amy on the grounds of neglect, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2021) ; willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home while failing to make reasonable progress, see id. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2021) ; and willful abandonment, see id. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (2021). In orders filed on 4 February 2021, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). The trial court concluded that terminating respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests. See id. § 7B-1110(a) (2021). Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights to Larry and Amy. Respondent appeals.

¶ 11 On appeal respondent contends the trial court erred by determining grounds existed to terminate her parental rights. Respondent argues several of the trial court's findings of fact are not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Respondent then contends the trial court's findings of fact do not support its conclusion of law that she willfully failed to make reasonable progress.

¶ 12 A termination of parental rights proceeding consists of an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2021).

"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).

In re L.M.M. , 379 N.C. 431, 2021-NCSC-153, ¶ 10, 866 S.E.2d 453 (quoting In re K.N.K. , 374 N.C. 50, 53, 839 S.E.2d 735, 737–38 (2020) (alteration in original)). The trial court's supported findings are "deemed conclusive even if the record contains evidence that would support a contrary finding." In re B.O.A. , 372 N.C. 372, 379, 831 S.E.2d 305, 310 (2019).

¶ 13 Here the trial court concluded that a ground existed to terminate respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). A trial court may terminate parental rights if "[t]he parent has willfully left the juvenile in...