In re J.J.H.

376 N.C. 161

851 S.E.2d 336

In the MATTER OF: J.J.H., K.L.R., J.J.H., S.S.S., J.M.S.

No. 430A19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2020

Mercedes O. Chut, Greensboro, for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services.

Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, P.A., Rocky Mount, by M. Greg Crumpler, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

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

ERVIN, Justice.

Respondent-mother Niesha W. appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights in the minor children, J.J.H.,¹ K.L.R., J.J.H., S.S.S. (Stacy), and J.M.S. After careful consideration of respondent-mother's challenges to the trial court's termination order² in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the challenged termination order should be affirmed.

I. Factual Background

On 4 April 2016, Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services filed juvenile petitions alleging that James, Jake, and Stacy were neglected and dependent juveniles and that Kim and Joshua were neglected juveniles and obtained the entry of orders placing the children into the nonsecure custody of DHHS. In its petitions, DHHS alleged that the agency had an extensive child protective services history with the family, having received eleven reports relating to the family between 8 October 2011 and 4 February 2016, nine of which had been substantiated. The reports that DHHS had received described instances of inadequate supervision, including (1) an incident in which two-year-old Stacy had been taken to the hospital on two different occasions as the result of burns to her buttocks, hands, and arms; (2) an incident in which five-year-old Joshua had hit and kicked four teachers at his daycare facility, resulting in his suspension; (3) an incident in which the children were left in the care of their maternal grandmother, who suffered from seizures and called a social worker to report that respondent-mother made a practice of dropping the children off at her house without permission even though the maternal grandmother could not care for them; (4) an incident in which the children were found alone at the home, with respondent-mother having explained that she had directed five-year-old Joshua to watch over the other children in her absence; (5) incidents in which Joshua had drawn pictures at school depicting sexual acts and explaining the human anatomy to his classmates, described sexual abuse by his older cousin who served as the children's nighttime babysitter, and attempted to engage in sexually inappropriate conduct with his younger siblings; (6) the fact that, even though James suffered from a birth defect that caused a large mass to grow in his nose, respondent-mother had missed five different medical appointments relating to his treatment for that condition; (7) an incident in which the children had to be returned to school because respondent-mother was not at home when they got off the bus; and (8) an incident in which the utilities had been turned off in the home. Although DHHS had offered to provide in-home services to the family as a result of these incidents, respondent-mother had been resistant to these offers and had only participated in the proffered services on a sporadic basis.

The juvenile petitions further alleged that DHHS had received yet another child protective services report on 28 March 2016 which described an incident of domestic violence that had occurred between respondent-mother and the father of James and Jake. According to respondent-mother, the father had assaulted her when he came to pick up Jake; however, the investigating officers saw no evidence that any such assault had occurred. The father, on the other hand, claimed that respondent-mother had attempted to run over him with her automobile while he was holding Jake. In the aftermath of this incident, respondent-mother had been arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. In the course of the ensuing DHHS investigation, Joshua reported that he had witnessed physical altercations between respondent-mother and James’ and Jake's father and that he had been aware of drug use and inappropriate sexual behavior in the family.

As a result of these allegations, DHHS held a team decision meeting on 4 April 2016, in which respondent-mother had participated. According to the allegations contained in the juvenile petitions, respondent-mother had become upset during the meeting, at which point she "stood up and violently jerked [James], who suffers from a brain tumor, seizures, and a facial tumor, from his caregiver." Upon being told by a social worker not to leave with James, respondent-mother pushed and struck the social worker while holding James, resulting in intervention by agency security personnel. Although respondent-mother left the building with James, she subsequently reentered the building, handed James to another person, and, in an aggressive and threatening manner, approached the social worker, who was located behind the reception desk, resulting in a situation in which the social worker had to use her feet to fend off respondent-mother's assault and as the result of which respondent-mother was charged with "Simple Assault and Battery/Affray." At the conclusion of the team meeting, DHHS decided to seek nonsecure custody of the children.

The juvenile petitions came on for an adjudication hearing on 29 September 2016 and a dispositional and permanency planning hearing on 13 October 2016. On 10 November 2016, Judge Lawrence McSwain entered an order finding the children to be neglected and dependent juveniles as alleged in the DHHS petitions. On 28 November 2016, Judge Randle Jones entered a disposition and permanency planning order finding that respondent mother had entered into a services agreement, or case plan, with DHHS on 27 April 2016 that included components relating to "employment/income management," "housing/environmental/basic physical needs," "parenting skills," "mental health," "substance abuse," "family relationships/domestic violence[,]" and "visitation/child support/other[.]" In addition, Judge Jones found that respondent-mother had begun to comply with the provisions of her case plan and that she had attended weekly supervised visitation with the children since 2 September 2016. Judge Jones determined that it was in the children's best interests to remain in DHHS custody and ordered that they do so. In addition, Judge Jones established a permanent plan of reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption; allowed respondent-mother to have supervised visitation with the children for one hour per week, with DHHS having the authority to increase the frequency or duration of these supervised visits; and ordered respondent mother to comply with the provisions of her case plan and to submit to random drug tests.

After a permanency planning hearing that began on 9 November 2017, continued on 7 December 2017, and concluded on 1 February 2018, Judge Tonia Cutchin entered an order finding that respondent-mother's behavior had not changed even though she had complied with some aspects of her case plan and that the concerns that had brought the children into DHHS custody remained in existence. Judge Cutchin found that efforts to reunify the children with respondent-mother would not be successful, that it would not be possible to return the children to respondent-mother's care within the next six months, that it would be in the children's best interests that termination of their parents’ parental rights be pursued, and that adoption would benefit the children. As a result, Judge Cutchin changed the permanent plan for the children to one of adoption with a secondary concurrent plan of reunification and ordered DHHS to pursue termination of parental rights.

On 16 August 2018, DHHS filed a petition seeking to have respondent-mother's parental rights in the children terminated on the basis of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the children's removal from the family home, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). The DHHS termination petition was heard before the trial court on 10 and 11 June 2019 and 8 and 10 July 2019. On 23 September 2019, the trial court entered an order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights in the children. In its termination order, the trial court concluded that respondent-mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and that the termination of respondent-mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. Respondent-mother noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's termination order.

II. Substantive Legal Analysis

In seeking relief from the trial court's termination order before this Court, respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred by concluding that her parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), and that the termination of her parental rights would be in the children's best interests. According to well-established North Carolina law, the termination of a parent's parental rights in a child involves the use of a two-step process that 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, 252 (1984). The petitioner bears the burden at the adjudicatory stage of proving the existence of one or more of the grounds for termination set out in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) by "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e), (f) (2019). In the event that the trial court finds that the parent's parental rights are subject to termination pursuant N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a), it must proceed to the dispositional stage, at which it must "determine whether terminating the parent's rights is in the juvenile's best interest." N.C.G.S. §...