In re T.B.

Decision Date18 March 2022
Docket Number149A21
Citation380 N.C. 807,870 S.E.2d 119
Parties In the MATTER OF: T.B.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Laura Kaiser Anderson, for petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

Chelsea K. Barnes, Winston-Salem, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Anné C. Wright, Boone, for respondent-appellant mother.

Peter Wood, for respondent-appellant father.

HUDSON, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother and respondent-father appeal from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their minor child T.B. (Tammy).1 Upon review, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 17 January 2019, Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services Youth and Family Services Division (YFS) filed a juvenile petition alleging that one-year-old Tammy was neglected and dependent, obtained nonsecure custody of Tammy, and moved her to a foster placement. The petition alleged YFS received a referral reporting that police were called to the family's home on 9 January 2019 in response to a domestic violence incident that occurred in Tammy's presence, resulting in respondent-father's arrest. Respondent-father was combative with police and was charged with assault on a female, injury to personal property, possession of marijuana, resisting arrest, and malicious conduct by a prisoner. Respondent-mother told a magistrate that the charges related to her were fabricated and paid a bondsman to secure respondent-father's release on 10 January 2019.

¶ 3 The petition further alleged that YFS investigators spoke with respondent-mother and then met with each parent separately on 11 January 2019. Respondents denied engaging in domestic violence and claimed a maternal aunt assaulted respondent-mother on 9 January 2019. However, respondent-mother admitted that respondent-father sometimes got jealous when she spoke to other men and told YFS she would have left respondent-father previously if she had more family support. Respondent-father acknowledged possible mental health needs. He also indicated he was previously involved with domestic violence treatment through NOVA but minimized any continued domestic violence between him and respondent-mother. Although respondent-mother indicated she and respondent-father were still living together as a couple, respondent-father told YFS that he was willing to leave the home as had been suggested by his probation officer. Both parents also admitted to smoking marijuana.

¶ 4 As a result of their meetings with YFS, respondents agreed to submit to random drug screens and substance abuse assessments by 15 January 2019. Respondent-father agreed to go to Monarch for a mental health assessment by 15 January 2019, and respondent-mother agreed to contact the YFS domestic violence liaison by 15 January 2019. However, at the time the petition was filed, neither respondent had followed through with these agreements.

¶ 5 YFS further alleged that other witnesses reported ongoing substance abuse and domestic violence between respondents and concerns about respondent-father's temper, prior domestic violence, and respondent-father's excessive control over respondent-mother. The family's child protective services history included a referral for domestic violence and substance abuse after a similar prior incident.

¶ 6 Respondents participated in mediation on 14 February 2019 and agreed to certain facts consistent with the petition's allegations.

¶ 7 After a hearing on 11 March 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Tammy a neglected and dependent juvenile on 25 April 2019. In addition to adopting the stipulated facts, the court made findings based on evidence of respondent-father's criminal record, which included a conviction of assault on a government official and a term of probation in which he was twice terminated from a required batterer's intervention program—once for excessive absences and once for a new assault charge. The court specifically found that respondents"intimate partner violence and substance abuse" led to Tammy's adjudication, and ordered respondents to comply with their mediated family services agreement (FSA). The FSA required respondent-mother to attend domestic violence classes, participate in substance abuse services recommended from her assessment, sign releases for YFS to monitor her progress, and work with YFS to identify supportive individuals and reconnect with family. The FSA required respondent-father to avoid domestic disputes and reengage in NOVA classes once eligible, attend recommended substance abuse services and submit to random drug screens, complete a mental health assessment and comply with recommended services, and sign releases for YFS to monitor his progress. The court ordered the child to remain in YFS custody. Respondents were ordered to attend separate supervised visitations with Tammy a minimum of two times per week.

¶ 8 Following a review hearing on 28 May 2019, the court entered an order on 8 July 2019 finding respondents were making progress on the substance abuse component of their FSA. Respondent-father had finished substance abuse classes with no further recommendations and submitted three negative drug screens. Respondent-mother was expected to complete substance abuse classes at the end of May and had submitted negative drug screens. However, the court's findings demonstrated minimal progress by respondents in addressing domestic violence, as respondent-father was unable to participate in domestic violence programs because of his pending criminal charges, and respondent-mother had not meaningfully engaged in counseling. Respondent-mother had been injured at least twice in domestic violence incidents and then either recanted or minimized the events in which she was injured. At the review hearing, respondent-mother stated that nothing was wrong in the home prior to Tammy's removal, which the court viewed as demonstrating her lack of insight into the removal conditions.

¶ 9 The trial court held a permanency planning hearing on 11 September 2019. In an order entered on 21 October 2019, the court established a primary permanent plan for Tammy of adoption with a secondary plan of reunification with respondent-mother, citing respondents’ failure to address their domestic violence issues. Specifically, the court found respondent-father had been charged with another act of domestic violence against respondent-mother on 15 August 2019 and was terminated from the NOVA program for the fourth time. The court expressed its concern about respondent-father's continued control over respondent-mother, who was pregnant, and asked "whether the mother is at a point (or will ever be at a point) where she can be safe and free from violence and abuse." The court found respondents were "acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile" and "have failed to address any of the removal conditions in any meaningful way ... [or] demonstrated that they would be able to meet the juvenile's basic needs."

¶ 10 In a permanency planning order entered on 2 January 2020, the court trial found that respondents were not actively participating in their FSA or cooperating with YFS or the guardian ad litem (GAL), and they had failed to address the removal conditions in any meaningful way. The court found that respondent-father appeared to lack any insight into his past violence and had yet to fully engage in any type of batterer's intervention or anger management program. Respondent-mother was due to give birth to another child within weeks of the hearing but had not sought prenatal care. Although there was some evidence that respondent-mother had separated from respondent-father and had engaged in some domestic violence services, it was unclear how much insight she had gained. The court further found that respondent-mother had not had any contact with Tammy since May 2019, despite YFS "encourag[ing her] to visit and bond with the child[.]" Due to respondents’ lack of progress, the court ordered YFS to file a petition to terminate parental rights within 60 days.

¶ 11 On 4 February 2020, YFS filed a motion to terminate respondents’ parental rights in Tammy. In its motion, YFS alleged that grounds existed to terminate both parents’ parental rights for neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2021), failure to make reasonable progress pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2021), failure to pay a reasonable portion of Tammy's cost of care pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (2021), and dependency pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (2021).

¶ 12 The termination motion was heard on 12 November 2020. On 12 January 2021, the trial court entered an order terminating respondents’ parental rights in Tammy. The court concluded that all four of the grounds alleged in the motion existed to terminate both respondents’ parental rights, and that it was in Tammy's best interests to terminate their rights. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2021). Both respondents appealed.

II. Analysis
A. Respondent-Mother's Appeal

¶ 13 On appeal, respondent-mother challenges the trial court's adjudication of the existence of grounds to terminate her parental rights.

When reviewing the trial court's adjudication of grounds for termination, we examine whether the court's findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Any unchallenged findings are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

In re Z.G.J. , 378 N.C. 500, 2021-NCSC-102, ¶ 24, 862 S.E.2d 180 (cleaned up). "[A]n adjudication of any single ground in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) is sufficient to support a termination of parental rights." In re E.H.P. , 372 N.C. 388, 395, 831 S.E.2d 49 (2019).

¶ 14 A trial court may terminate parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) for neglect if it determines the parent has neglected the juvenile within the meaning of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re B.R.W.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 6 Mayo 2022
    ...parental rights displaced precisely because of her efforts to seek out a safe and stable home. Compare In re T.B., 2022-NCSC-43, ¶ 26, 870 S.E.2d 119 (affirming order terminating parental rights on ground of neglect in part because "[r]espondent-mother did not immediately end the relationsh......
  • In re S.M.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 18 Marzo 2022

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT