In re L.R.L.B.

377 N.C. 311

857 S.E.2d 105

In the MATTER OF: L.R.L.B.

No. 289A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 23, 2021

Hockaday & Hockaday, P.A., Burnsville, by Daniel M. Hockaday, for petitioner-appellee Yancey County Department of Social Services.

Matthew D. Wunsche, Durham, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Parent Defender Wendy C. Sotolongo, Durham, and Deputy Parent Defender Annick Lenoir-Peek, for respondent-appellant mother.

MORGAN, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her son "Liam,"¹ and from the trial court's earlier permanency planning order which eliminated reunification from Liam's permanent plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2) (2019). The termination order also terminated the parental rights of Liam's father, who is not a party to this appeal. Due to our conclusion that the permanency planning order lacked findings which address one of the four issues contemplated by N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(d) (2019), we remand to the trial court for the entry of additional findings. However, because the resolution of respondent-mother's claim of error concerning the trial court's permanency planning order is accomplished by remand, instead of by vacation or reversal of the permanency planning order at issue as authorized by N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a2), it is presently premature for this Court to consider the trial court's order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 29 August 2018, Yancey County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained nonsecure custody of Liam, who was born almost a year earlier in September 2017. DSS filed a juvenile petition seeking an adjudication that Liam was neglected. The petition alleged that DSS had received a report in July 2018 that respondent-mother had been arrested for driving while impaired as Liam rode with her in the car. In a second report dated 25 July 2018, respondent-mother accused Liam's father of engaging in domestic violence against her and sexually molesting Liam. While a DSS investigation and a forensic examination of Liam would subsequently result in a determination that no sexual abuse had occurred, DSS's first visit with the family following the receipt of the second report occurred while both parents were intoxicated and resulted in respondent-mother and Liam moving into a domestic violence shelter on the same day.

¶ 3 The petition further alleged that, following respondent-mother's transition to the domestic violence shelter, DSS received a series of telephone calls during the week of 20 August 2018 reporting changes in respondent-mother's behavior that raised concerns about Liam's safety. Shelter staff workers and Liam's father described respondent-mother as exhibiting "extreme paranoia, uncontrollable crying, [and] lapses in memory[,]" including occasions when she left Liam "completely unattended causing alarm to shelter staff and the agency." When DSS attempted to assist respondent-mother, she refused to cooperate with the social worker and treatment providers. Respondent-mother also refused to submit to a drug screen. Liam's father was excluded as a placement option "due to recent domestic violence incidents and ongoing concerns, a criminal history and an active substance abuse issue."

¶ 4 Respondent-mother obtained a comprehensive clinical assessment at RHA Health Services on 13 September 2018; she signed a Family Services Agreement (FSA) with DSS the following day. As part of her FSA, respondent-mother agreed to follow the recommendations of her comprehensive clinical assessment, including engaging in intermediate-level mental health and substance abuse services, along with parenting classes. Respondent-mother also agreed to obtain stable housing and employment in order to demonstrate her ability to provide for Liam's needs.

¶ 5 After adjudicatory and dispositional hearings on 15 November and 12 December 2018, the trial court entered orders on 19 February 2019 adjudicating Liam as neglected and ordering DSS to maintain custody of the child. In ordering respondent-mother to comply with the requirements of her FSA, the trial court specifically mentioned respondent-mother's compliance with requested drug screens and granted her three hours of weekly supervised visitation with Liam. At an initial review hearing on 11 March 2019, the trial court found that respondent-mother had resumed living with Liam's father and ordered both parents to submit to a domestic violence assessment and to follow any resulting recommendations in addition to complying with the existing requirements of their respective case plans.

¶ 6 The trial court held a permanency planning hearing on 14 June 2019 during which it established a primary plan of reunification for Liam with a concurrent plan of adoption. At the next review hearing on 9 August 2019, the trial court found that, while respondent-mother had "completed some portions of her case plan" including parenting classes, she had tested positive for alcohol and amphetamines, and continued to exhibit inappropriate behaviors. Specifically, the trial court noted that respondent-mother had "acted in a disrespectful way to DSS workers and [did] not appreciate the DSS role in protecting the health, safety and welfare of her minor child[.]" The trial court ordered DSS to "promptly arrange a psychological evaluation for the respondent-mother through Grandis." Respondent-mother was admonished by the trial court and was directed to "adopt a better attitude." She was ordered to cooperate with DSS, to abstain from using illicit substances, and to "make significant progress on her DSS case plan[.]" Despite the identified concerns, the trial court maintained Liam's permanent plan as reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption.

¶ 7 Following the next review hearing on 11 October 2019, the trial court entered a permanency planning order on 15 November 2019 which relieved DSS of further reunification efforts and changed Liam's permanent plan to adoption. On 13 January 2020, respondent-mother filed notice pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2)(a) (2019) to preserve her right to appeal the order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan² .

¶ 8 On 8 January 2020, DSS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent-mother and Liam's father. The trial court held a hearing to address the petition on 12 March 2020 and entered an order terminating the parental rights of both parents on 31 March 2020. The trial court adjudicated the existence of grounds for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2) (2019), based on respondent-mother's neglect of Liam and on her willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the juvenile's removal from the home in August 2018. After considering the dispositional factors enumerated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2019), the trial court concluded that it was in Liam's best interests for the rights of both parents to be terminated.

II. Respondent-mother's Appeal

¶ 9 Respondent-mother filed her notice of appeal from the 15 November 2019 permanency planning order which eliminated reunification from Liam's permanent plan and from the 31 March 2020 termination order which terminated respondent-mother's parental rights. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a2) (2019), we "review the order eliminating reunification together with an appeal of the order terminating parental rights."

¶ 10 Respondent-mother limits her appeal to challenges to the trial court's 15 November 2019 permanency planning order. Although she does not identify any error in the order terminating her parental rights, respondent-mother contends that the alleged reversible errors in the permanency planning order require us to vacate the termination order under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a2), which provides that "[i]f the order eliminating reunification is vacated or reversed, the order terminating parental rights shall be vacated."

A. Standard of review

¶ 11 Our review of a permanency planning order " ‘is limited to whether there is competent evidence in the record to support the findings [of fact] and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.’ The trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by any competent evidence." In re L.M.T. , 367 N.C. 165, 168, 752 S.E.2d 453 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting In re P.O. , 207 N.C. App. 35, 41, 698 S.E.2d 525 (2010) ). The trial court's dispositional choices—including the decision to eliminate reunification from the permanent plan—are reviewed only for abuse of discretion, as those decisions are based upon the trial court's assessment of the child's best interests. See In re J.H. , 373 N.C. 264, 267–68, 837 S.E.2d 847 (2020).

B. Challenged findings

¶ 12 Respondent-mother challenges several portions of the trial court's Finding of Fact 6 in its permanency planning order, claiming that those portions are "either not supported or contrary to the evidence." Although respondent-mother offers no argument or discussion about the significance of these asserted errors, we address each of her challenges to the trial court's findings in turn. Finding of Fact 6 states, in pertinent part:

that since the matter was last reviewed, the juvenile has remained in foster care placement; that the respondent parents have signed DSS case plans; that respondent mother has completed Triple P Parenting; obtained her [comprehensive clinical assessment]; completed intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment; is now engaged in the intermediate SA program; reports that she attends AA/NA weekly; has provided clean drug screens through RHA but has tested positive on two (2) occasions for alcohol; has participated in peer support and medication management through RHA; has not complied with DSS requested drug screens; has not maintained stable residence; has not maintained stable employment; has received three (3) separate sanctions

...