In re A.L.L.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 319A19,319A19
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: A.L.L.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

376 N.C. 99

852 S.E.2d 1

In the MATTER OF: A.L.L.

No. 319A19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2020

Christopher M. Watford, for petitioner-appellees.

Jeffrey L. Miller, Greenville, for respondent-appellant mother.

EARLS, Justice.

Respondent appeals from an order entered by the Davie County District Court terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Ann.¹ The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1111(a)(6) and (a)(7). Although we agree with petitioners that the Davie County District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a termination order, we conclude that petitioners have not proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights. Further, we hold that the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) are not met in this case because Ann resides with legal permanent guardians and that the record lacks any evidence supporting a conclusion that respondent acted willfully within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7). Accordingly, there is no cause to remand for further fact-finding, and we reverse the trial court's order.

Standard of Review

A trial court with subject-matter jurisdiction "is authorized to order the termination of parental rights based on an adjudication of one or more statutory grounds." In re J.A.E.W. , 375 N.C. 112, 117, 846 S.E.2d 268, 271 (2020). Absent subject-matter jurisdiction, a trial court cannot enter a legally valid order infringing upon a parent's constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child. In re E.B. , 375 N.C. 310, 315–16, 847 S.E.2d 666, 671 (2020). Whether or not a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. See, e.g. , Willowmere Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Charlotte , 370 N.C. 553, 556, 809 S.E.2d 558, 560 (2018). Challenges to a trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including "for the first time before this Court." In re T.R.P. , 360 N.C. 588, 595, 636 S.E.2d 787, 793 (2006).

"At the adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by ‘clear, cogent, and convincing evidence’ the existence of one or more grounds for termination under [ N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) ]." In re J.A.E.W. , 375 N.C. at 116, 846 S.E.2d at 271 (citation omitted). We review a trial court's order "to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law." In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246, 253 (1984). 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, 695 (2019).

Background

Respondent gave birth to her daughter, Ann, in July 2015. On the day Ann was born, respondent made concerning statements to hospital personnel indicating a lack of understanding of what was required to safely care for a newborn child. After receiving respondent's mental-health treatment records, which indicated that she had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia

, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and an eating disorder, a doctor from the hospital conducted a mental health assessment and confirmed a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia

. A report was made to the Davidson County Department of Social Services (DSS) alleging that respondent's mental health conditions might render her unable to independently care for Ann. Respondent was unable or unwilling to provide information about Ann's father. She was unable to provide DSS with the name of any person that could assist her in caring for Ann or who could serve as an appropriate kinship placement.

Two days later, DSS filed a petition seeking to have Ann adjudicated to be a dependent juvenile. DSS obtained nonsecure custody and placed Ann with foster parents, the petitioners in the present case. Respondent entered into an out-of-home family services agreement, agreeing to participate in parenting classes, complete a psychological and parenting capacity assessment, complete individual counseling, and maintain suitable housing and visits with Ann. At a hearing on 7 October 2015, the parties stipulated that Ann was a dependent juvenile and the Davidson County District Court entered an order to that effect. Respondent was ordered to make progress towards completing the terms of her case plan. She was allowed supervised visits with Ann twice a week for two hours each time.

The trial court's first permanency-planning order reflects that respondent made significant progress towards satisfying the terms of her case plan. She had completed parenting classes and a psychological and parenting capacity assessment, started attending therapy and counseling, and obtained stable housing. She attended all visitations with Ann except one. However, DSS and others involved in treating respondent's mental health conditions continued to report significant concerns about respondent's capacity to safely care for Ann. Although respondent was receiving counseling and taking medications, she denied that she had a mental illness. She also failed to appropriately interact with her child during visits, persisting in behaviors suggesting inattentiveness to or incomprehension of Ann's needs. She demonstrated an unwillingness to acknowledge and address her deficiencies as a parent, disregarding basic parenting advice offered by DSS. Weighing respondent's progress against her undeniable shortcomings as a parent, the trial court established a permanent plan of reunification and a secondary plan of guardianship.

After the first permanency-planning hearing, respondent continued to struggle to address her severe mental health issues. At times, respondent was combative and disrespectful towards DSS. She repeatedly provided Ann with gifts, clothing, and food that were not age appropriate. Although none of her relatives were able to serve as a kinship placement, a potential guardian who was acquainted with respondent's immediate family was identified and approved as an appropriate alternative caregiver for Ann. However, the trial court changed the permanent plan to guardianship with a secondary plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. Ultimately, the trial court implemented the primary permanent plan by appointing petitioners as Ann's legal permanent guardians pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-600. Respondent was awarded visitation with Ann for one hour every three months supervised by petitioners in a public place of their choosing. The trial court waived future permanency planning and review hearings.

On 27 February 2018, petitioners filed a petition seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights in Davie County District Court. Petitioners stated that they wished to have respondent's parental rights terminated in order to adopt Ann "as soon as possible." Over respondent's objection, the trial court appointed her an attorney and a guardian ad litem. At a termination hearing on 15 April 2019, the trial court received evidence from a psychologist who evaluated respondent and the DSS social worker who managed respondent's case. The evidence indicated that while respondent "did everything that DSS and the [c]ourt asked her to do," her mental health conditions, and resultant deficiencies as a parent, rendered her unable to safely care for her daughter. Testimony presented at the hearing also indicated that respondent had persisted in her refusal to take prescribed medication to treat her mental health conditions, although the DSS social worker acknowledged that even if respondent had complied with her medication plan, she would still lack the "mental health stability" necessary to be a parent.

On 29 April 2019, the Davie County District Court entered an order terminating respondent's parental rights on the grounds that she was incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of Ann such that Ann was a dependent juvenile, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), and that she had willfully abandoned Ann, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7). Respondent appealed the trial court's order.

Analysis

Respondent raises three challenges to the Davie County District Court's order terminating her parental rights to Ann. First, she contends that the Davie County District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter an order terminating her parental rights because the Davidson County District Court had previously entered a permanency-planning order establishing petitioners as Ann's legal permanent guardians. Second, respondent argues that the trial court failed to make adequate findings to support a conclusion that she lacked an "appropriate alternative child care arrangement" for Ann as required under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) and that the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) cannot be satisfied as a ground for terminating the rights of a parent whose child has been placed with legal permanent guardians. Third, respondent argues that the trial court failed to make adequate findings to support a conclusion that she had "willfully abandoned" Ann within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) and that the record lacks any evidence indicating that her behavior was anything other than a manifestation of her severe mental health conditions. We address each argument in turn.

a. Jurisdiction

Respondent argues that the Davie County District Court lacked jurisdiction because the Davidson County District Court had previously entered a legally valid order establishing a permanent plan of guardianship in Ann's underlying dependency proceeding. If respondent were correct that the Davie County trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, then its order terminating respondent's parental rights was "[a] void judgment [which] is, in legal effect, no judgment. No rights are acquired or divested by it." Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc. , 244 N.C. 84, 90, 92 S.E.2d 673, 678 ...