In re T.A.M.
| Decision Date | 18 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 276A20,276A20 |
| Citation | 859 S.E.2d 163 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: T.A.M., K.R.M. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Hanna Frost Honeycutt, Newland, for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services; and William A. Blancato for respondent-appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Edward Eldred, for respondent-appellant father.
Peter Wood, for respondent-appellant mother.
¶ 1 Respondent-mother Lauren S. and respondent-father Wesley M. appeal from orders entered by the trial court terminating their parental rights in their minor children T.A.M. and K.R.M.1 Respondent-father challenges the trial court's decision to grant his appointed counsel's motion to withdraw whereas respondent-mother challenges the trial court's determination that it was in Tam and Kam's best interests to terminate her parental rights. Since we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any issue raised by the parents’ appeals, we affirm the trial court's termination-of-parental-rights orders.
¶ 2 On 15 August 2016, the Buncombe County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a pair of child protective services (CPS) reports alleging that respondent-mother had just given birth to Tam, that she had been using drugs during her pregnancy, and that she had been homeless and living in her automobile immediately prior to giving birth. In addition, the reports alleged that both parents had a history of substance abuse and domestic violence and had recently been arrested on drug-related charges. On 17 August 2016, DSS received another CPS report that restated the allegations contained in the prior report and asserted that respondent-mother suffered from untreated mental health problems, that respondent-father was consuming illegal substances, and that respondent-mother had previously lost custody of another child as the result of substance abuse problems.
¶ 3 A social worker assigned to investigate these reports learned from the staff of the hospital at which respondent-mother gave birth to Tam that respondent-mother had tested positive for THC and unprescribed Oxycodone
, and that Tam's cord toxicology screen had been positive for the presence of marijuana and opiates. In addition, the hospital staff told the social worker that respondent-mother tested positive for methamphetamine in June 2016. Respondent-mother admitted that she had been smoking marijuana during her pregnancy, that she suffered from mental health problems, and that she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. However, respondent-mother denied that she had consumed other unlawful substances or had been involved in incidents of domestic violence with respondent-father.
¶ 4 Respondent-father, on the other hand, denied all the allegations that had been made in the CPS reports. Finally, the social worker interviewed another social worker who had worked with the parents at an earlier time. The previous social worker confirmed that she had seen bruises that respondent-father inflicted upon respondent-mother on more than one occasion; that neither parent satisfied the requirements set out in their case plans, which required them to complete substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and domestic violence classes; and that respondent-mother acknowledged a history of domestic violence that respondent-father perpetrated against her.
¶ 5 After Tam was placed in a safety care placement, the parents agreed to comply with a safety plan, which required them to participate in supervised visitation; obtain substance abuse treatment; have no contact with each other in Tam's presence; and consent to follow-up medical care, the assistance of a home health nurse, and the provision of pediatric care for Tam. In addition, respondent-father agreed to complete an anger management program.
¶ 6 According to a substance abuse assessment that respondent-mother obtained, respondent-mother had a severe substance abuse problem, with the assessing agency recommending that respondent-mother participate in therapy due to her "lack of desire or capacity to get clean." The assessing agency also recommended that respondent-mother undergo intensive outpatient therapy and participate in parenting education and domestic violence classes. Furthermore, the assessing agency concluded that respondent-mother had significant mental health problems that hindered her ability to care for a child and diagnosed respondent-mother as being bipolar and suffering from borderline personality disorder
, severe opiate use disorder, and moderate cannabis use disorder.
¶ 7 After the completion of this assessment, respondent-mother agreed to enter into a family services agreement pursuant to which she was required to comply with the recommendations made by the assessing agency, to refrain from consuming any medications not prescribed for her, to attend weekly Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and to submit to random drug screens. Similarly, respondent-father agreed to enter into a family services agreement, which required him to attend substance abuse classes, refrain from consuming unlawful substances, submit to random drug screens, complete a batterer's intervention program, and attend anger management classes. After entering into these family services agreements, respondent-mother was arrested on drug-related charges while respondent-father admitted that he had consumed marijuana and failed to start participating in the batterer's intervention program. As a result, DSS filed a petition alleging that Tam was a neglected juvenile on 22 September 2016.2
¶ 8 After an adjudicatory hearing held on 18 November 2016, the trial court entered an order on 5 January 2017 finding that Tam was a neglected juvenile based upon the parents’ stipulation as to the accuracy of the allegations contained in the juvenile petition. In view of the parents’ further stipulation to the continuance of this case for disposition until a later time, the trial court entered an interim disposition order. This order provided that, while the parents retained custody of Tam, Tam would continue to reside in her safety placement and both parents would be awarded supervised visitation with her.
¶ 9 Following an initial dispositional hearing held on 31 January 2017, the trial court entered an order on 20 February 2017 in which it found as a fact that (1) the parents failed to submit to required drug screens on 19 December 2016; (2) the parents continued to deny that their relationship was characterized by domestic violence and minimized the extent to which domestic violence had occurred between them; and (3) the parents continued to reside with each other and lacked sufficiently stable housing to permit them to assume responsibility for providing care for Tam. Moreover, the trial court found that respondent-mother (1) had been arrested on the basis of outstanding warrants on 22 November 2016, and (2) had yet to complete a psychiatric evaluation or participate in medication management, although she had attended substance abuse treatment group sessions.
¶ 10 The trial court further found that respondent-father was completing some aspects of his case plan, such as complying with the terms of his probation, but the trial court also found that he had not been attending his substance abuse group, he was not participating in individual therapy, and he had not yet obtained a medical evaluation. As a result, and with the parents’ consent, the trial court placed Tam in DSS custody, provided for supervised visitation between the parents and Tam, and ordered the parents to comply with the provisions of their case plans. After a permanency planning review hearing held on 6 December 2017, the trial court entered an order on 8 January 2018 establishing reunification as the primary permanent plan for Tam, with a secondary permanent plan of custody.
¶ 11 On 12 January 2018, DSS received a CPS report indicating that respondent-mother had recently given birth to Kam. According to the report, respondent-mother admitted to having used marijuana while she was pregnant with Kam and tested positive for the presence of marijuana in September and December 2017. In addition, the report indicated that respondent-father tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana in June 2017. A social worker assigned to investigate the report confirmed the validity of these allegations, with respondent-father having admitted that he had continued to use marijuana and had smoked marijuana on the day prior to his conversation with the investigating social worker.
¶ 12 On 16 January 2018, DSS filed a petition alleging that Kam was a neglected juvenile in which DSS recited the allegations set out in the earlier petition relating to Tam, the history of DSS's efforts to work with the parents, and the information contained in the most recent CPS report. In addition, DSS alleged that the respondent-parents had threatened to sue DSS and that, after learning that Kam would not be discharged to their care, their "behaviors continued to escalate," with respondent-mother having "grabbed" Kam, necessitating the assistance of hospital security personnel. Based upon the same concerns, DSS obtained the entry of an order allowing DSS to take Kam into nonsecure custody.
¶ 13 On 30 January 2018, the trial court held a permanency planning and review hearing regarding Tam. In an order entered on 22 February 2018, the trial court found that the conditions that had led to Tam's removal from the parents’ custody continued to exist and that a return to their home would be contrary to Tam's health and safety. In light of that determination, the trial court changed Tam's secondary permanent plan to adoption while leaving reunification as Tam's primary permanent plan.
¶ 14 An adjudicatory hearing relating to the juvenile petition concerning Kam was held on 16 March 2018. After the parents stipulated to the validity of the allegations in the DSS...
To continue reading
Request your trial