In re M.M.

• Citation: 871 S.E.2d 878 (Table)
• Decision Date: 17 May 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-721
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: M.M., J.M., Minor Children.
• Court: Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

871 S.E.2d 878 (Table)

In the MATTER OF: M.M., J.M., Minor Children.

No. COA21-721

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 17, 2022

Miller & Audino, LLP, by Jeffrey L. Miller, for respondent-appellant-mother.

Aaron G. Walker, for petitioner-appellee McDowell County Department of Social Services.

Matthew D. Wunsche, for the Guardian ad Litem.

GORE, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's 23 August 2021 judgment and order terminating her parental rights to M.M. ("Mel") and J.M. ("Jon").¹ Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(e). When appellant's counsel submits a no-merit brief in a juvenile matter, this Court then carefully and independently reviews the issues identified by counsel in light of the entire record. In re C.R.B. , 374 N.C. 523, 525, 843 S.E.2d 57, 58 (2020) ; In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396, 403, 831 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2019). We conclude the issues identified by counsel in respondent's brief are meritless and therefore affirm the trial court's order.

¶ 2 Respondent-mother and M.M. are the unmarried natural parents of the juveniles Mel and Jon. The parental rights of M.M. were previously terminated in a separate civil action.

¶ 3 In October 2018, McDowell County Department of Social Services ("DSS") received a referral for domestic violence in respondent-mother's home. Following an argument, respondent-mother's live-in boyfriend, Greg W., reportedly choked and fought with her. Respondent-mother called 911 for assistance. Law enforcement responded and observed marking and bruising on respondent-mother and Greg. The children were present during this altercation. Greg was intoxicated at the time and registered a .25 on a breath test. There is a prior history of domestic violence by Greg against respondent-mother that involved DSS.

¶ 4 On 9 April 2019, following ongoing domestic violence and non-compliance with service plans, DSS filed petitions alleging Mel and Jon were neglected juveniles. Non-Secure Custody Orders were entered granting custody and placement authority to DSS. In September 2019, respondent-mother stipulated to the factual allegations in the petitions and the trial court adjudicated Mel and Jon as neglected juveniles. In its disposition, the trial court granted custody and placement authority to DSS, ordered reunification efforts, and established a case plan for respondent-mother.

¶ 5 At the initial permanency planning review hearing on 19 December 2019, the trial court determined that respondent-mother had made minimal progress in her case plan. A primary permanent plan of guardianship was established, with a secondary plan of reunification with respondent-mother.

¶ 6 At a review hearing on 30 January 2020, the trial court made findings that respondent-mother: refused to submit to drug screens; failed to produce a work schedule; had not completed parenting classes, individual counseling, or codependency classes; had not submitted to a parenting capacity evaluation; and had not completed her additional comprehensive clinical assessment service recommendations. The trial court determined that respondent-mother was in substantial non-compliance with her case plan.

¶ 7 Following a subsequent permanency planning review on 27 August 2020, the juveniles’ primary plan was changed to adoption with the secondary plan remaining reunification. The trial court made findings that respondent-mother had tested positive for opiates and hydrocodone at times she did not have a valid prescription and that she had engaged in pain pill seeking behaviors. Between January and February 2020, she had obtained 166 pills of oxycodone

. She had lost her job and her car and had been evicted from her residence. She missed scheduled appointments for her parenting capacity assessment and did not submit to an evaluation until August 2020. The trial court found that respondent-mother was in substantial noncompliance with her case plan while her children had been in custody for more than 400 days. It ordered her to complete additional services and ceased visitation with Mel...