In re A.C.

378 N.C. 377

861 S.E.2d 858

In the MATTER OF: A.C.

No. 446A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed August 27, 2021

Jennifer Oakley Michaud, for petitioner-appellee Stokes County Department of Social Services.

James N. Freeman, Jr., Elkin, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Jeffrey L. Miller, Greenville, for respondent-appellant mother.

ERVIN, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother Krissy M. appeals from the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights in A.C.¹ After careful review of the trial court's termination orders in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that those orders should be affirmed.

¶ 2 On 13 July 2018, the Stokes County Department of Social Services filed a petition alleging that Arty was a neglected juvenile. In its petition, DSS alleged that it had received a child protective services report on 29 June 2018 stating that Arty, who had just been born, was in the neonatal intensive care unit as the result of possible drug exposure and respiratory distress. According to DSS, respondent-mother had admitted to having taken Subutex, which she purchased "off the street," and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms that included being "jittery[,] [s]haky, [and] sweaty." After expressing concern that respondent-mother "may be using something else now," DSS stated that she was "taking Subutex in the hospital and it[’]s now prescribed by a doctor." Although a drug test that respondent-mother had taken while hospitalized had produced negative results, DSS asserted that Arty's umbilical cord had tested positive for the presence of amphetamines and Subutex at the time of his birth. DSS further alleged that respondent-mother had told social workers "that she had been getting Subutex off the street for the last four years due to her ‘getting hooked’ on pain medication after a car accident" and that she had been taking Adderall to help with her depression despite the fact that she did not have a prescription authorizing her to use that substance. On the same date upon which the petition was filed, DSS obtained the entry of an order providing that Arty should be taken into nonsecure custody.

¶ 3 After a hearing held on 27 September 2018, Judge Gretchen H. Kirkman, with respondent-mother's consent, entered an order on 30 October 2018 determining that Arty was a neglected juvenile. On 30 October 2018, Judge Kirkman entered a separate dispositional order providing that Arty would remain in DSS custody and establishing a primary permanent plan for Arty of reunification with a parent and a concurrent permanent plan of guardianship. In addition, Judge Kirkman ordered that respondent-mother enter into a Family Services Case Plan and comply with its provisions. Finally, Judge Kirkman authorized respondent-mother to have four hours of supervised visitation with Arty each week on the condition that she provide negative drug screens.

¶ 4 After a review hearing held on 28 March 2019, Judge Thomas Langan entered an order on 10 May 2019 in which he found that respondent-mother was living with her own mother, that she was struggling with anxiety and depression, that these mental health difficulties were interfering with her efforts to satisfy the requirements of her case plan, that she had not been attending parenting classes or receiving mental health treatment since December 2018, and that she had not had a domestic violence assessment. As a result, Judge Langan ordered respondent-mother to comply with the requirements of her case plan and to cooperate with the drug screening process.

¶ 5 In the aftermath of a review hearing held on 8 August 2019, the trial court entered a permanency-planning order on 10 September 2019 in which it found that respondent-mother continued to live with her mother, continued to struggle with anxiety and depression, and had not attended parenting classes or mental health treatment since December 2018 until restarting treatment in May 2019. In addition, the trial court found that respondent-mother had refused to participate in the drug screening process, had failed to appear for the purpose of providing a sample to be screened in December and January, had not been screened for drugs from December 2018 through 22 March 2019, had failed to appear for a scheduled drug screen on 10 June 2019, and had admitted to having taken Adderall that was purchased unlawfully. The trial court further found that respondent-mother had failed to participate in a second psychological evaluation that she had been ordered to obtain after reporting that she had ceased making any effort to satisfy the requirements of her case plan as the result of anxiety and depression. Moreover, the trial court also found that respondent-mother had reported that she had been involved in an incident of domestic violence during which Arty's father had become violent and which had led her to obtain the entry of a domestic violence protective order against Arty's father. Finally, the trial court found that respondent-mother had failed to demonstrate that she was employed. As a result, the trial court changed Arty's primary permanent plan to one of adoption.

¶ 6 Following a permanency-planning hearing held on 10 October 2019, the trial court entered an order on 7 November 2019 determining that respondent-mother was obtaining housing with Arty's father, had completed a domestic violence support group, had completed parenting classes, and had obtained a psychological evaluation. On the other hand, the trial court also found that respondent-mother continued to either refuse to participate in the drug screening process or to fail to appear upon occasions when she was requested to provide a sample for screening and that she had tested positive for the presence of Subutex and methamphetamines on 4 September 2019. In addition, the trial court found that respondent-mother had failed to attend Arty's medical appointments.

¶ 7 On 7 November 2019, DSS filed a motion seeking to have respondent-mother's parental rights in Arty terminated on the basis of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019) ; willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to Arty's removal from her care, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) ; and dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6). On 13 July 2020, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order determining that respondent-mother's parental rights in Arty were subject to termination on the basis of all three grounds for termination alleged in the termination motion and a separate dispositional order determining that the termination of respondent-mother's parental rights would be in Arty's best interests. As a result, the trial court terminated respondent-mother's parental rights in Arty.² Respondent-mother noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's termination orders.³

¶ 8 As an initial matter, respondent-mother contends that the trial court erred by determining that her parental rights in Arty were subject to termination. A termination of parental rights proceeding consists of an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019); In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 110, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984). At the adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence" that one or more of the grounds for termination set out in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) exist. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f). We review a trial court's adjudication decision in order "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. at 111, 316 S.E.2d 246 (citing In re Moore , 306 N.C. 394, 404, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) ). "[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).

¶ 9 A parent's parental rights in a child are subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) in the event that the trial court concludes that the parent has neglected the juvenile within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-101. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). A neglected juvenile is defined, in pertinent part, as a juvenile "whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; ... or who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile's welfare." N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15) (2019). As we have recently explained,

[t]ermination of parental rights based upon this statutory ground requires a showing of neglect at the time of the termination hearing or, if the child has been separated from the parent for a long period of time, there must be a showing of a likelihood of future neglect by the parent. When determining whether such future neglect is likely, the district court must consider evidence of changed circumstances occurring between the period of past neglect and the time of the termination hearing.

In re R.L.D. , 375 N.C. 838, 841, 851 S.E.2d 17 (2020) (cleaned up) (first quoting In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) ; then quoting In re Z.V.A. , 373 N.C. 207, 212, 835 S.E.2d 425 (2019).

¶ 10 In determining that respondent-mother's parental rights in Arty were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, the trial court took judicial notice of the file in the underlying juvenile neglect and dependency proceeding and found that Arty had been adjudicated to be a neglected juvenile on 27 September 2018. In addition, the trial court found that respondent-mother had agreed to a case plan on 19 September 2018 that required her to (1) attend and successfully complete an approved parenting class; (2) complete a parenting psychological evaluation, a mental health evaluation, a domestic violence assessment, and a substance abuse assessment and comply with all treatment-related recommendations; (3) participate in a random drug screening process; (4) communicate with DSS on a weekly basis; (5) maintain...