In re B.F.N.

381 N.C. 372

873 S.E.2d 291

In the MATTER OF: B.F.N. and C.L.N.

No. 261A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2022

Gregory T. Griffin, Clinton, for petitioner-appellant mother.

Jeffrey L. Miller, Greenville, for respondent-appellee father.

HUDSON, Justice.

¶ 1 Petitioner, the mother of C.L.N. (Chip)¹ and B.F.N. (Brad) (collectively, the children), appeals from the trial court's orders denying her petitions to terminate the parental rights of respondent, the children's biological father. Because trial court's findings of fact do not permit meaningful appellate review and are thus insufficient to support the denial of the termination petitions, we vacate the trial court's orders and remand for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Petitioner and respondent were married in 2003. Chip was born in 2007, and Brad was born in 2012. The parties divorced in 2015.

¶ 3 On 9 March 2015, a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) was issued against respondent. The trial court found that in March 2015, respondent had placed petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by threatening to harm her and causing property damage. The trial court concluded that respondent had committed acts of domestic violence against petitioner and that there was a danger of serious and immediate injury to petitioner. Pursuant to the DVPO, respondent was prohibited from assaulting, threatening, abusing, following, harassing, or interfering with petitioner; prohibited from threatening a member of petitioner's family or household; ordered to stay away from petitioner's residence or any place where petitioner receives temporary shelter; ordered to stay away from petitioner's work and "any place [petitioner] may be found"; and prohibited from possessing, receiving, or purchasing a firearm. The terms of the DVPO were in effect until 9 March 2016.

¶ 4 On 12 March 2015, petitioner and respondent entered into a "Confession of Judgment." They agreed that petitioner would have primary custody of the children. Respondent would have secondary joint custody of the children and visitation with the children every first and third weekend of the month and select holidays.

¶ 5 On 21 October 2017, respondent physically assaulted petitioner at a restaurant while the children were present. As a result of the incident, criminal charges were brought against respondent, and on 7 December 2017, respondent was found guilty of assault on a female.

¶ 6 On 11 December 2017, another DVPO was entered against respondent. The trial court found that on 21 October 2017, respondent had intentionally caused serious bodily injury to petitioner by "attacking and assaulting" petitioner. Pursuant to the DVPO, respondent was prohibited from assaulting, threatening, abusing, following, harassing, or interfering with petitioner; prohibited from assaulting, threatening, abusing, following, harassing, or interfering with children residing with or in the custody of petitioner; prohibited from threatening a member of petitioner's family or household; ordered to stay away from petitioner's residence or any place petitioner receives temporary shelter; ordered to stay away from petitioner's work, the children's school or any place where the children receive day care, and "any other place where [petitioner] is located." Respondent was also ordered to make payments to petitioner for support of the children; prohibited from possessing, receiving, or purchasing a firearm; ordered to surrender firearms, ammunition, and gun permits; and ordered to attend and complete an abuser treatment program. The terms of the order were effective until 11 December 2018. Additionally, temporary custody of the children was granted to petitioner.

¶ 7 On 21 December 2017, the trial court entered an order finding that the children were exposed to a substantial risk of emotional injury caused by respondent, the children were present during acts of domestic violence perpetrated by respondent against petitioner, and respondent had acted in a manner that was not in the best interests of the children and was inconsistent with his constitutional rights as a natural parent. The trial court concluded that respondent was not a fit and proper person to exercise any custody or visitation with the children and that it was in the best interests of the children that petitioner have exclusive custody of them. Accordingly, petitioner was granted the exclusive care, custody, and control of the children, and respondent's rights of secondary joint custody and visitation were terminated.

¶ 8 Respondent was ordered to "remain away" and "not to go around" the children and petitioner, including but not limited to "any place where they may be whether at home, school, church, in any public or private place"; ordered to leave any premises "wherever they may be present"; and prohibited from making "any contact in person and/or by an agent directly or indirectly." Respondent was ordered not to have any contact with petitioner or the children "pending further orders of th[e] court and only upon a motion in the cause being filed by [respondent] alleging that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred and no sooner can such motion be filed then until after one (1) year from the entry of this order." As a condition precedent to respondent filing such a motion, the trial court ordered him to obtain a substance abuse and alcohol assessment and complete all recommended treatment; undergo a psychological examination and attend any recommended counseling; complete at least three consecutive alcohol and drug screens at least one month apart prior to filing any motion; complete certified parenting classes; complete domestic violence prevention classes; and complete an anger management assessment and all recommended treatment and counseling sessions.

¶ 9 On 14 March 2019, the trial court entered an order holding respondent-father in contempt for violating its 21 December 2017 order. The trial court found that respondent had violated the 21 December 2017 order by sending petitioner text messages on 14, 15, and 21 December 2018 requesting to see the children and going to Chip's school and attempting see him on 11 January 2019. The trial court ordered respondent to serve thirty days in the Sampson County Jail. All but one twenty-four-hour period of this sentence was suspended. The 21 December 2017 order remained in effect.

¶ 10 On 10 July 2020, petitioner filed petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights in the children. Petitioner alleged, inter alia , that respondent had for a period greater than two years preceding the filing of the petitions willfully failed without justification to pay for the care, support, and education of the children; respondent had "abandoned and neglected" the children and "ha[d] not made any inquiry about the wellbeing" of the children in over two years; and respondent had willfully abandoned the children for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petitions.

¶ 11 On 21 July 2020, respondent filed a motion for modification of child custody seeking joint legal and physical custody of the children. Alternatively, respondent sought "substantial visitation" with the children. On 19 October 2020, respondent filed an answer to the termination petitions, denying many of the allegations.

¶ 12 Following a hearing on 18 March 2021, the trial court entered orders on 18 May 2021 finding that there was "insufficient evidence for th[e] [c]ourt to conclude that grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of the Respondent" and denying the petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights.² Petitioner timely appealed to this Court.

II. Analysis

¶ 13 On appeal, petitioner challenges the trial court's conclusion that grounds did not exist to terminate respondent's parental rights in the children. Specifically, she argues the trial court erred in concluding that respondent did not willfully abandon or neglect the children.³ Based on the reasons stated herein, we hold that the trial court's findings of fact do not permit meaningful appellate review and are thus insufficient to support the trial court's denial of the termination petitions.

¶ 14 Subsection § 7B-1109(e) provides that the trial court "shall take evidence, find the facts, and shall adjudicate the existence or nonexistence of any of the circumstances set forth in [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-1111 which authorize the termination of parental rights of the respondent." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e) (2021). The burden of proof is upon the petitioner and "all findings of fact shall be based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) (2021).

¶ 15 "Should the court determine that circumstances authorizing termination of parental rights do not exist, the court shall dismiss the petition or deny the motion, making appropriate findings of fact and conclusions [of law]. " N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(c) (2021) (emphasis added). The trial court is under a duty to "find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, regardless of whether the court is granting or denying a petition to terminate parental rights." In re K.R.C. , 374 N.C. 849, 857, 845 S.E.2d 56 (2020) (cleaned up).

Compliance with the fact-finding requirements of N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109(e) and -1110(c) is critical because [e]ffective appellate review of an order entered by a trial court sitting without a jury is largely dependent upon the specificity by which the order's rationale is articulated. Evidence must support findings; findings must support conclusions; conclusions must support the judgment. Each step of the progression must be taken by the trial judge, in logical sequence; each link in the chain of reasoning must appear in the order itself. Where there is a gap, it cannot be determined on appeal whether the trial court correctly exercised its function to find the facts and apply the law thereto.

Id. at 858, 845 S.E.2d 56 (alteration in...