In re P.J.W.W.

• Decision Date: 04 April 2023
• Docket Number: COA22-511
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF: P.J.W.W.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

1

IN THE MATTER OF: P.J.W.W.

No. COA22-511

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

April 4, 2023

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 February 2023.

Appeal by respondent-father from the order entered 23 December 2021 by Judge Elizabeth Freshwater-Smith in Nash County District Court. No. 21-JT-31

Reece & Reece, by Mary McCullers Reece for respondent-appellant father.

Battle, Winslow, Scott &Wiley, P.A., by M. Greg Crumpler and Katherine Wiggins Fisher for petitioner-appellee mother.

FLOOD JUDGE.

Timothy Moore ("Respondent-Father") appeals from the order (the "Order") terminating his parental rights as to his minor child, William.^[1] After careful review, we conclude that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports at least one ground for termination of Respondent-Father's parental rights, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding it was in William's best interests to terminate.

I. Background and Procedural History

Respondent-Father and Isabella Wagley ("Petitioner-Mother") began a romantic relationship in the fall of 2015. Petitioner-Mother became pregnant with William in November 2015. In March 2016 Respondent-Father and PetitionerMother ended their relationship but remained in contact and committed to coparenting William. Prior to William's birth, with the guidance of a co-parenting specialist, Petitioner-Mother created four parenting plan options from which Respondent-Father could choose. Petitioner-Mother wanted to be flexible, as Respondent-Father's schedule was not a regular nine to five day job, and he lived in two different places. At this time, Respondent-Father split his time between two addresses: a houseboat he rented in Washington D.C. for $800 per month, and a home he owned in Heathsville, Virginia. Petitioner-Mother sent Respondent-Father the parenting plan options on two different occasions, 10 April 2016 and 1 May 2016, but Respondent-Father did not respond.

On 26 July 2016, William was born in Nantucket, Massachusetts. RespondentFather was not listed on the birth certificate as Petitioner-Mother was advised to omit his name because they were not married, and Respondent-Father was not present at the birth. Respondent-Father brought up the issue of the birth certificate with Petitioner-Mother several times. Petitioner-Mother asked Respondent-Father to provide necessary information to have his name added, but he did not provide the information, and instead told Petitioner-Mother, "you do it." As of the time of this appeal, Respondent-Father's name is still not listed on William's birth certificate.

After William was born, Petitioner-Mother continued to visit RespondentFather, so he could spend time with William. From August 2016 through November 2016, Petitioner-Mother invited Respondent-Father to William's doctor appointments and daycare events. Respondent-Father attended all these events except a "back to school night" because he had to work. Petitioner-Mother also listed RespondentFather as a "pick-up contact" with William's daycare, and Respondent-Father picked William up from daycare several times.

Petitioner-Mother, Respondent-Father, and William spent Thanksgiving 2016 together at a cabin with Petitioner-Mother's brother and sister-in-law. According to Petitioner-Mother, Respondent-Father spent the holiday "drinking heavily from morning till night," and would become "agitated" any time William cried.

Despite this experience over Thanksgiving, Petitioner-Mother planned a Christmas trip to the cabin so they could all spend William's first Christmas as a family. Respondent-Father drank very heavily on 27 December and became belligerent when Petitioner-Mother asked him to go sleep in his bed instead of staying on the couch where he was snoring loudly. Respondent-Father was allegedly furious when he woke up, and he repeatedly called Petitioner-Mother expletives in front of William. At first light the following morning, Petitioner-Mother took William home.

On 23 February 2017, Respondent-Father left gifts for William on PetitionerMother's doorstep. This was the first time Respondent-Father made any form of contact since Petitioner-Mother and William left the cabin on 28 December 2016. On 24 February 2017, Petitioner-Mother sent an email to Respondent-Father asking him to stop leaving gifts for William at her home and requested he contact her directly so they could meet in a public place to exchange gifts. She further offered to set up a Post Office box for Respondent-Father to send things to, if that would be easier for him. Petitioner-Mother claimed that, after her experience over Christmas, it was "too scary" to have Respondent-Father "just showing up" at her house. RespondentFather did not respond to her email.

Despite her request, Respondent-Father continued to drop things off for William at Petitioner-Mother's house. In an email to Respondent-Father on 18 March 2017, Petitioner-Mother threatened legal action if Respondent-Father continued to come to her home. Respondent-Father responded to this email, stating, "[p]erhaps you did not receive my messages asking where you would like to meet. As you did not respond I did drop off those items." Petitioner-Mother sent a response email on the same day telling Respondent-Father she did not receive any messages, and stating, "[a]s you know I've blocked your number."

Respondent-Father testified at the subsequent termination of parental rights hearing that he did not know she had blocked his number; he learned of this for the first time when he read her response email. Petitioner-Mother, however, read during her testimony a 9 March 2017 text message exchange in which Respondent-Father called her a "crazy ex-girlfriend," and told her, "you're pathetic inside," and "you have some issues." Petitioner-Mother responded to these statements by telling Respondent-Father, "this nut job is going to block you . . . you will always have my email address, but I cannot continue to keep getting these messages . . . and these phone calls."

Before Petitioner-Mother blocked Respondent-Father's phone number, he sent her "random messages with no context at all." Respondent-Father did not inquire of William in these messages or ask to see him. On 7 March 2017, in response to these messages, Petitioner-Mother sent Respondent-Father an email detailing two parenting options from which he could choose:

1. If you would like to be part of [William's] life - please contribute [half] of his day care and health insurance ($1,200), each month. This does not include the cost of his food, formula, diapers or clothes. We can work out a visiting schedule. You will be required to pay the amount you have missed since December 2016. I am happy to accommodate you as much as possible: items that are nonnegotiable are outlined below:

1. These visits will include you, [William], and someone else that I know and trust;

2. These visits will last 2 hours or less;

3. These visits will be requested with at least 3 days advance notice;

4. These visits will not exceed 3 days per week;

5. You will have all responsible gear and food for [William] when he is in your care;

6. These terms are valid until I feel that I can trust you on your own with [William].

Option number two allowed Respondent-Father to walk away and cease all contact.

From Christmas 2016 until this March 2017 email was sent, Respondent Father had not asked to see William, but Petitioner-Mother offered him these options because she believed William should have a relationship with Respondent-Father. Even though Respondent-Father did not respond to this email, Petitioner-Mother reached out to him again on 25 March 2017 to see if he would like to have lunch and see William. Respondent-Father told Petitioner-Mother lunch "sound[ed] good," and they agreed to meet at a restaurant. After this lunch, Respondent-Father emailed Petitioner-Mother stating, "[it] was so great to see him - he's amazing." PetitionerMother responded, "I'm glad you two could spend some time together. Let me know your ideal schedule going forward - and we can work on a plan from there."

Petitioner-Mother and Respondent-Father agreed he could see William two weeks from 25 March 2017 for one hour. This date and time worked best for Respondent-Father's work schedule and William's sleep schedule. In this same email exchange, Petitioner-Mother asked Respondent-Father what he could contribute financially for William during this agreement. When Respondent-Father asked what William needed, Petitioner-Mother reminded him of her previous email, and the request for tuition and healthcare assistance in the amount of $1,200, half of William's total tuition and healthcare costs. Respondent-Father did not respond. The following day, Petitioner-Mother sent a subsequent email to Respondent-Father stating: "Hello? Are you unable to assist [William] financially? If that is the case -that is fine. But please be open about your intentions." Respondent-Father did not respond to this email either. At the termination hearing, Respondent-Father testified he did not respond because he did not have $1,200 a month at that time to provide William. Respondent-Father conceded he should have offered to pay something as small as $100, but he felt $1,200 was all she was willing to accept.

On 6 April 2017, Respondent-Father emailed Petitioner-Mother the following: "I funded the joint account for [William's] expenses .... I have repeatedly told you I will pay for child support." Petitioner-Mother...