In re R.G.L.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 99A21,99A21 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: R.G.L. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Thomas L. Fitzgerald, Roxboro, for petitioner-appellee Person County Department of Social Services; and Matthew D. Wunsche, Durham, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Wendy C. Sotolongo, Parent Defender, by J. Lee Gilliam, Assistant Parent Defender, for respondent-appellant father.
¶ 1 Respondent appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights in the minor child "Robert."1 We affirm.
¶ 2 On 29 August 2018, the Person County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that three-year-old Robert was neglected. The juvenile petition stated that a child protective services (CPS) report was filed on 14 May 2018 alleging improper supervision, injurious environment, and substance abuse after Robert wandered away from the house while respondent was sleeping and a neighbor called 911. Respondent and Robert's mother completed requested drug screens on 15 May 2018. Respondent's screens were positive for amphetamines
and oxycodone, which he was prescribed, and oxymorphone. He admitted to running out of medication sooner than expected because his use exceeded the prescribed amount. The mother's screens were positive for amphetamines
, oxycodone, oxapam, oxymorphone, and marijuana metabolite; moreover, she admitted to using marijuana, Percocet, Adderall, and Valium. The CPS report was substantiated and transferred to in-home services on 27 June 2018.
¶ 3 The juvenile petition further alleged that DSS's efforts to engage the family and ensure Robert's safety were unsuccessful, and that a second CPS report was filed on 27 August 2018 for physical injury after the mother was charged with driving while impaired (DWI) on 19 July 2018 while Robert was in the vehicle. The mother admitted that the DWI charge was the result of her taking suboxone
before driving. On 28 August 2018, DSS completed a home visit and found the premises to be in disarray. When the family was unable to identify an alternate safety provider, DSS filed the juvenile petition and obtained nonsecure custody of Robert.
¶ 4 Following a hearing on the juvenile petition on 11 September 2018, the trial court entered an order on 25 September 2018 adjudicating Robert to be a neglected juvenile. The trial court found that the conditions in the home as alleged in the petition led to or contributed to the adjudication. The court ordered that Robert remain in DSS custody and that DSS develop and implement a visitation plan providing for at least one hour of weekly supervised visitation between Robert and his parents. The court further ordered both parents to submit to random drug screens within two hours of requests to do so and to keep DSS informed of any change of address.
¶ 5 The matter came on for an initial review hearing on 17 December 2018. In the order entered following the hearing, the trial court found that the parents attended an initial child and family team (CFT) meeting to develop their respective case plans on 27 September 2018. Respondent's needs were identified to include employment, parenting skills, substance use, mental health, medical care, and housing. The court further found that respondent was no longer employed as of 23 November 2018; that he completed a mental health assessment in August 2018 that recommended outpatient therapy and a psychiatric evaluation for possible medication management, but he was a "no[-]show" for psychiatric evaluations in September and December 2018; and that the location of the parents' residence was unknown. The court identified the barriers to reunification as the needs identified in the case plan and found that DSS had made recommendations focused on the needs of the parents to assist the parents in their stated goal of reunification. The court ordered DSS to retain custody of Robert and to maintain a visitation plan allowing the parents at least one hour of weekly supervised visitation and ordered the parents to comply with their case plans, follow recommendations of treatment providers, and submit to random drug screens within two hours of requests.
¶ 6 Following a 26 August 2019 permanency-planning hearing, the trial court entered an order setting the permanent plan for Robert as reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. The court found that the parents had obtained employment and had made a down payment on a trailer in June 2019. The court noted the parents were working second and third shifts and had not developed a viable plan for childcare, and they did not have drivers' licenses and could not legally transport Robert. The parents' new trailer was found to be clean, neat, and modern, and to have ample space. The court additionally found that respondent attended weekly visitations but was consistently late, fell asleep during most visits, and was not always engaged with Robert during the visits; that respondent had "finally relented" after several months of requests that he seek medical care for sleep apnea
, but no report of results had been made; and that the parents reported having had "excellent rapport" with Robert's foster parents and they were "able to eat lunch with [Robert] sometimes and engage him at the church where the foster parents attend." The court ordered DSS to continue the plan of at least one hour of weekly supervised visitation with additional visitation as arranged with the foster parents and ordered the parents to develop and present transportation and childcare plans to DSS.
¶ 7 The matter came back on for a permanency-planning hearing on 2 December 2019. The trial court found that the parents were struggling to achieve the needed goals. The findings show that both parents had lost their jobs, that respondent reported new employment that had not been verified, and that the parents had not presented suitable transportation or childcare plans to DSS. Respondent attributed his inability to stay awake to his sleep apnea
, but he had not sought the requested medical care to address the issue despite DSS's referral to a neurologist for a sleep study. The court also found that individuals who resided with the parents when Robert was removed from the parents' care were still living with the parents, and that DSS was not able to enter the home during the most recent home visit because the parents were asleep and someone else answered the door. The trial court changed the permanent plan for Robert to adoption with a concurrent plan of reunification and reduced the parents' visitation to biweekly supervised visits.
¶ 8 On 5 February 2020, DSS filed a motion to terminate the parents' parental rights in Robert based on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to Robert's removal from the home. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) (2019). Respondent filed an answer opposing termination on 12 May 2020.
¶ 9 Before the termination hearing occurred, the matter came back on for two additional permanency planning hearings on 6 July 2020 and 5 October 2020. The updated findings from the 6 July 2020 hearing were unfavorable to the parents. The trial court found that both parents reported unemployment. The court also found that the parents had acquired rental housing different from the trailer they were previously living in; that individuals with extensive criminal and child protective services histories were residing with the parents; and that DSS was advised that the parents "are under eviction status" because of their failure to pay rent since March 2020. The court reduced the parents' visitation to at least one hour of supervised visitation per month. Following the 5 October 2020 hearing, the court found that the parents resided in separate locations, but their accommodations were not stable; the parents reported unemployment; neither parent had visited Robert recently; and neither parent was compliant with the terms of their respective case plans.
¶ 10 The termination motion was heard on 9 November 2020. In an order entered on 23 November 2020, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate the parents' parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of the parents' parental rights was in Robert's best interests. Accordingly, the trial court terminated the parents' parental rights in Robert. Respondent appeals.2
¶ 11 Termination of parental rights proceedings are conducted in two stages, an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019).
In the initial adjudicat[ory] stage, the trial court must determine whether grounds exist pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 to terminate parental rights. If it determines that one or more grounds listed in section 7B-1111 are present, the court proceeds to the dispositional stage, at which the court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the juvenile to terminate parental rights.
In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 842, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (cleaned up). In his appeal, respondent challenges the trial court's determinations that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights in Robert at the adjudicatory stage and that termination was in Robert's best interests at the dispositional stage.
¶ 12 At the adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of one or more grounds for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) by "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e), (f) (2019). We review a trial court's adjudication of the existence of grounds to terminate parental rights "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 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) ). "A trial court's finding of fact that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re R.L.R.
...403–04, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) ). "Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal." In re R.G.L. , 379 N.C. 452, 2021-NCSC-155, ¶ 12, 866 S.E.2d 401. "Moreover, we review only those findings necessary to support the trial court's determination that......
-
In re H.B.
...existed "between the child and mom." We hold the evidence does not support the challenged portions of findings of fact 32 and 55.¶ 74 379 N.C. 452, 2021-NCSC-155, ¶ 28, 866 S.E.2d 401. Similarly, the social worker in this case testified that Mother's visitations went well and the guardian a......
-
In re A.N.H.
...and convincing evidence is deemed conclusive even if the record contains evidence that would support a contrary finding." In re R.G.L. , 379 N.C. 452, 2021-NCSC-155, ¶ 12, 866 S.E.2d 401. "Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are bindi......
-
In re N.W.
...403–04, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) ). "Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal." In re R.G.L. , 379 N.C. 452, 2021-NCSC-155, ¶ 12, 866 S.E.2d 401. "The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal." In re C.B.C. , 373 N.C. 1......