In re S.C.L.R.
| Decision Date | 27 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 371A20,371A20 |
| Citation | 378 N.C. 484,861 S.E.2d 834 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: S.C.L.R. |
No brief for petitioner-appellees.
Sydney Batch, Raleigh, for respondent-appellant father.
Jeffrey L. Miller, Greenville, for respondent-appellant mother.
¶ 1 Respondents appeal from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to S.C.L.R. (Sue).1 After careful review, we affirm the order as to respondent-mother and reverse the order as to respondent-father.
¶ 2 Petitioners brought Sue home from the hospital after her birth in the spring of 2017. Petitioners came to provide for Sue through a friend of petitioners who worked with Sue's paternal grandmother. At the time of Sue's birth, both respondents were incarcerated, and the paternal grandmother wanted to find an alternative to foster care. Respondents assigned temporary custody of Sue to petitioners pursuant to a consent order entered on 15 May 2017. Permanent custody was granted by the trial court to petitioners in Cleveland County File No. 17-CVD-814 (the Custody Action) by order signed on 27 June 2019. Sue has been in petitioners’ care and custody since they took her home from the hospital in May 2017.
¶ 3 Petitioners filed a verified petition to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights to Sue on 5 August 2019. Petitioners subsequently filed an amended verified petition to terminate respondent-mother's and respondent-father's parental rights to Sue on 26 August 2019. Petitioners sought termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(4) and (7).
¶ 4 The trial court held the termination-of-parental-rights hearing on 26 February 2020. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order on 21 May 2020 in which it determined that grounds existed to terminate respondents’ parental rights pursuant to the grounds alleged in the petition. The trial court further concluded it was in Sue's best interests that respondents’ parental rights be terminated. Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondents’ parental rights.
¶ 5 Respondents gave timely notice of appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1). Respondent-mother's notice of appeal, however, improperly designated the Court of Appeals as the court to which appeal was being taken. Respondent-mother filed an amended notice of appeal on 25 June 2020 in which she correctly designated this Court as the court to which appeal was being taken. On 22 September 2020, respondent-mother filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's order terminating her parental rights. On 19 October 2020, we allowed respondent-mother's petition for writ of certiorari.
¶ 6 Respondents first argue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate their parental rights because the verified petition fails to allege "facts sufficient to identify the petitioner or movant as one authorized by [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-1103 to file a petition or motion." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2) (2019). Because we conclude that the allegations in the petition are sufficient to comply with N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2) and respondents do not dispute that petitioners in fact were persons authorized by N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a) to file a petition for termination of respondents’ parental rights, we decline to address whether the legislature has limited the trial court's jurisdiction to petitions filed with allegations sufficient to comply with N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2).
¶ 7 Subsection 7B-1103(a) of the General Statutes of North Carolina provides the following:
¶ 8 A petition or motion to terminate parental rights shall state "[t]he name and address of the petitioner or movant and facts sufficient to identify the petitioner or movant as one authorized by [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-1103 to file a petition or motion." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2).
¶ 9 Respondents have not challenged the trial court's finding in the termination-of-parental-rights order that Sue has resided with petitioners since she came home from the hospital after her birth in May 2017. Respondents also testified to this effect at the termination-of-parental-rights hearing. Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. See In re Z.L.W. , 372 N.C. 432, 437, 831 S.E.2d 62 (2019). Thus, this appeal does not involve a dispute concerning whether petitioners are in fact persons "with whom the juvenile has resided for a continuous period of two years or more next preceding the filing of the petition or motion." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(5). Consequently, whether petitioners were authorized by statute to file a petition for termination of respondents’ parental rights is not at issue. Instead, this appeal only raises whether a statutory pleading requirement was met.
¶ 10 When we look at the petition, it is apparent that petitioners did provide their names and address but did not include an allegation using the specific language of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(5). However, as N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2) does not require specific language for compliance, our analysis does not end here. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2).
¶ 11 Instead, we must consider whether the provision of petitioners’ names, address, and other facts in the petition are "sufficient to identify ... petitioner[s] as ... one authorized by [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-1103 to file a petition [for termination of parental rights]." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2). Among other things, the petition alleged "[t]hat custody was given to the [p]etitioners in Cleveland County File No.: 17-CVD-814 by Order of this [c]ourt dated February 12, 2019 that was subsequently filed June 24, 2019; that since prior to the entry of this Order, the respondents have not had any contact with the minor child." The petition also identified that Sue resides with petitioners in Cleveland County.
¶ 12 In the Custody Action, respondents are the defendants, and petitioners are the plaintiffs.2 Petitioners commenced the Custody Action by complaint after Sue's birth when Sue remained in the hospital. Respondents accepted service, and petitioners and respondents consented to the entry of an order by the trial court in the Custody Action on 15 May 2017. The trial court found "[t]hat the parties agree that the minor child should be placed in the temporary legal and physical care, custody[,] and control of the [petitioners], subject to the [respondents] exercising supervised visitation upon their release [from incarceration]" and ordered "[t]hat the [petitioners] shall have the temporary legal and primary physical care, custody[,] and control of [Sue] subject to [respondents] exercising supervised visitation for a minimum of one hour each week upon [their] release." Later, upon petitioners’ request, the parties were heard by the trial court on 12 February 2019. The trial court upon hearing the testimony of the parties and reviewing the evidence found that Sue "ha[d] been placed with [petitioners] since she was an infant," and petitioners "have provided excellent care for [Sue], since being vested with temporary custody." Thereafter, the trial court ordered that "[petitioners] shall have the permanent sole care, custody[,] and control of [Sue]." The order was signed on 27 June 2019.
¶ 13 Since the foregoing findings of fact and orders of the trial court in the file identified by the petition establish that petitioners have had Sue in their legal care, custody, and control since 15 May 2017 and the petition to terminate the parental rights of respondents was filed on 26 August 2019, we conclude the petition contains "facts sufficient to identify the petitioner or movant as one authorized by [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-1103 to file a petition or motion." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2). Specifically, the aforementioned facts reflect that Sue "has resided [with petitioners] for a continuous period of two years or more next preceding the filing of the petition." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(5). Thus, we find no merit in respondents’ first argument.
¶ 14 Our Juvenile Code provides for a two-step process for the termination of parental rights—an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, 1110 (2019). 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). N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e), (f). If the trial court finds the existence of one or more grounds to terminate the respondent's parental rights, the matter proceeds to the dispositional stage where the trial court must determine whether terminating the parent's rights is in the juvenile's best interests. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a).
¶ 15 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 Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984). "The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal." In re C.B.C. , 373 N.C. 16, 19, 832 S.E.2d 692 (2019). Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. In re Z.L.W. , 372 N.C. at 437, 831 S.E.2d 62.
¶ 16 As pertinent to both respondents’ arguments on appeal, the trial court's termination-of-parental-rights order found that:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re E.D.H.
...trial court, this Court is ‘obliged to apply the appropriate standard of review to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.’ " In re S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484, 2021-NCSC-101, ¶ 19, 861 S.E.2d 834 (quoting In re J.S. , 374 N.C. 811, 818, 845 S.E.2d 66 (2020) ). Whether a certain action occurred......
- Sullivan v. Woody
- In re A.P.W.
-
In re N.J.D.K.
...court was under no obligation to contemplate explanations limiting Mother's ability to display filial affection to Noah. See Matter of S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484, 2021-NCSC-101, ¶ 28 ("[T]he trial court resolved the reason for [the] respondent-mother's lack of contact: it concluded that [the] ......