In re L.G.G.

379 N.C. 258

864 S.E.2d 302

In the MATTER OF: L.G.G., L.G., and L.J.G.

No. 458A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed November 5, 2021

Chelsea Bell Garrett, Boone, for petitioner-appellee Watauga County Department of Social Services.

Michelle FormyDuval Lynch, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Robert W. Ewing, Clemmons, for respondent-appellant mother.

Sean P. Vitrano, Wake Forest, for respondent-appellant father.

HUDSON, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondents appeal from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights in the minor children L.G.G., L.G., and L.J.G. (Gary, Richard, and John).¹ Because we hold the trial court did not err in concluding grounds existed to terminate respondents’ parental rights based on neglect and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in Gary's best interests, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2 On 23 January 2018, Watauga County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed juvenile petitions alleging that seven-year-old Gary, three-year-old Richard, and two-year-old John were neglected juveniles. The petitions alleged that on or about 22 September 2017, DSS received a report alleging issues of inappropriate discipline and lack of supervision of the children. During the first week of DSS's assessment, respondent-mother called DSS and reported that she and respondent-father had gotten into a fight the night before and that she had left the home. She further reported that the children were in the home during the domestic violence incident but were sleeping. The social worker observed respondents’ home to be "in an extreme state of despair and filth."

¶ 3 The family entered into a safety plan on or about 6 October 2017. Respondents agreed to refrain from domestic violence and to clean up their house and the surrounding area. On or about 11 October 2017, DSS transferred the case to In-Home Services finding the family to be in need of continuing services. During the initial visit by the In-Home Services Social Worker on 17 October 2017, "the home was again in a deplorable state." DSS discussed the need for additional services with respondents and they entered into a case plan agreeing to conduct an intake with Daymark Recovery Services for Intensive In-Home Services and to follow all recommendations for treatment.

¶ 4 Respondents missed several of their scheduled intake sessions and ongoing appointments with Daymark. Respondents did not complete their intake appointment until two months after entering into the case plan. Daymark recommended that the family participate in Intensive In-Home Services and that Gary be transferred to a day treatment program "to address his extreme behavioral problems[.]" Respondents did not enroll Gary within the thirty days required under the assessment, and an additional intake session was required in order for any services to be provided. After Daymark was able to initiate their Intensive In-Home Services program, respondents attended their first meeting but failed to schedule another visit.

¶ 5 Gary's elementary school reported that he frequently complained of tooth pain and that it hurt for him to eat. A dental screening on 16 November 2017 at Gary's elementary school revealed that he had several cavities and "required extensive dental work." Respondent-mother did not schedule a dentist appointment or verify that Gary was still on Medicaid for several weeks, and DSS ultimately scheduled the appointment for 20 December 2017. The day before the appointment, respondent-mother contacted DSS to reschedule the appointment stating that Gary had a Christmas presentation at school the next day and insisted he be allowed to participate. DSS rescheduled the appointment for 2 January 2018. The dental appointment confirmed Gary had multiple cavities and required "extensive treatment." The dentist stated that Gary may need to be hospitalized in order to conduct all of the necessary work. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for 22 January 2018 to begin the dental work. DSS attempted to contact respondent-mother the morning of the appointment to confirm her need for transportation. However, DSS did not receive a response from the family the entire day, and Gary did not attend the appointment.

¶ 6 On 8 February 2018, respondents appeared in court for an adjudicatory hearing on the juvenile petitions. Following an agreement between respondents and DSS, the matter was continued until 1 March 2018 to allow respondents time to demonstrate compliance and engagement in their case plan activities.

¶ 7 After the hearing, respondents allowed their Medicaid insurance to lapse again by failing to provide the Medicaid office with the necessary paperwork, and Gary's 12 February 2018 follow-up dental appointment had to be rescheduled. Respondent-mother rescheduled the appointment for one month later on 5 March 2018. Meanwhile Gary continued to complain of constant teeth pain to his teachers. On 13 February 2018, respondents did not pick up Gary from the school bus, and school personnel were unable to get in contact with them.

¶ 8 On 14 February 2018, DSS took the children into nonsecure custody and filed additional petitions alleging the children to be neglected and dependent juveniles. Following a 17 April 2018 hearing on the juvenile petitions, the trial court entered a consent order on 31 May 2018 adjudicating the children as neglected juveniles. The court ordered respondents to enter into and comply with the components of a case plan requiring them to complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all treatment recommendations; complete a parenting assessment and follow all recommendations; complete parenting classes; secure reliable transportation; maintain safe, stable, appropriate housing; participate in recommended services for the children; meet with DSS to discuss the needs of the children and family; tend to the children's medical and dental needs; and attend visitations. Respondents were granted a minimum of one hour of supervised visitation per week.

¶ 9 The trial court held a review hearing on 14 June 2018. In an order entered 6 August 2018, the court found that respondents were not being cooperative with DSS or the court; "continued to use methamphetamine and have demonstrated no willingness to deal with that problem[;]" and admitted they would fail drug screens for methamphetamine. The trial court set the primary plan as reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. Respondents’ visitation was suspended until they showed to the satisfaction of DSS that they were making progress with their substance abuse treatment by providing a clean drug screen.

¶ 10 Following a permanency planning hearing held 6 December 2018, the trial court entered an order on 17 January 2019 maintaining the permanent plan of reunification with a secondary plan of adoption finding that the parents had "recently made considerable progress" "after doing essentially nothing for a long period of time[.]"

¶ 11 In its next review order entered 16 April 2019, the trial court found that respondents "seem to be making great effort to comply" with their case plans at times, and "[a]t other times, they appear to be ignoring the requests of DSS and the mandates of [the c]ourt." The court found respondents had missed several drug screens and that respondent-mother tested positive for methamphetamines on or about 7 November 2018 but denied using drugs. Although respondents were attending visitations and behaving appropriately, the court found the children's behaviors had regressed since the visitations had resumed.

¶ 12 On or about July 2019, Gary and Richard reported to their therapist, Robin Spicer, that they had viewed pornography while in respondents’ home. Richard also disclosed instances where he observed Gary and John engaging in sexualized behavior with each other. John acknowledged the behavior to Ms. Spicer. Richard later disclosed that he also engaged in the sexual behavior with his brothers. Ms. Spicer testified at the termination hearing that the children's assessment score was "the highest level of these kind of sexualized behaviors" and that the children "had really high symptoms that were off the charts[.]" The children all exhibited sexualized behaviors when they entered foster care. On 31 July 2019, DSS and Ms. Spicer discussed with respondents the recent disclosures by the children. Respondents did not believe the sexual behavior had happened in their home.

¶ 13 In a permanency planning order entered 4 October 2019, the trial court changed the permanent plan to adoption with a secondary plan of guardianship and relieved DSS of further reunification efforts. The trial court found the children's behaviors had further regressed and they "appear to be out of control." Gary became more aggressive towards himself and defiant of his foster parents, Richard began wetting the bed, and John started showing aggression toward animals in his foster home. The court found that respondents both missed an appointment with the children's therapist; that respondents "have charged out of therapy sessions with the therapists, expressing frustration and doubts about the validity of these therapy sessions"; and that although respondents had made progress in improving the condition of their home, their two bedroom home "would not be adequate to meet the needs of the three Juveniles." The court found that respondents had "failed to do those things which were asked of them in March" and "still deny any responsibility for their actions, blaming the Department and the Court for their difficulties."

¶ 14 On 12 March 2020, DSS filed motions to terminate respondents’ parental rights to the children. DSS alleged that grounds existed to terminate respondents’ parental rights based on neglect, willfully leaving the children in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal...