In re M.S.

859 S.E.2d 152

In the MATTER OF: M.S., W.S., E.S.

No. 343A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed June 18, 2021

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

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

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

Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-appellant father of M.S. and W.S.

Edward Eldred, for respondent-appellant father of E.S.

BERGER, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights to M.S. (Molly), W.S. (Will), and E.S. (Ella).¹ Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless and, therefore, affirm the trial court's orders as to respondent-mother.

¶ 2 Respondent-father Cameron appeals from the trial court's orders terminating his parental rights to Molly and Will. Respondent-father Miles appeals from the trial court's orders terminating his parental rights to Ella. We conclude that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact, supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, to support its conclusion to terminate both respondent-fathers’ parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) ; therefore, we affirm the trial court's orders as to both respondent-fathers.

I. Background

¶ 3 On July 5, 2018, the Stokes County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report alleging that respondent-mother, respondent-father Cameron, Molly, and Will were overnight guests at a home when officers with the King Police Department responded to a report of drug use. After obtaining a search warrant, officers found evidence of drug use, including methamphetamine and marijuana; drug paraphernalia, including hypodermic needles; and an unsecured, loaded gun, all of which were accessible to the children. Respondent-mother denied seeing any drugs or drug paraphernalia in the home and denied intravenous drug use; however, an officer noted that she appeared to have fresh track marks on her arms and hands. The children were then placed with a temporary safety provider that same day.

¶ 4 On July 6, 2018, respondent-mother was arrested and charged with possession of heroin, possession of drug paraphernalia, and child abuse. These charges were later dismissed. Respondent-father Cameron was also arrested and charged with a felony probation violation and resisting a public officer. Both parents refused to submit to a drug screen requested by DSS.

¶ 5 On July 13, 2018, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging that Molly and Will were neglected juveniles due to the children living in an environment injurious to their welfare, and DSS obtained nonsecure custody of the children the same day.

¶ 6 On July 24, 2018, respondent-mother entered into an Out of Home Family Services Agreement Case Plan with DSS.

¶ 7 On August 20, 2018, respondent-mother gave birth to Ella. Both respondent-mother and Ella tested negative for controlled substances at the hospital; however, on August 27, 2018, a test of Ella's umbilical cord came back positive for Suboxone.

¶ 8 On August 22, 2018, DSS received a report of substance abuse and an injurious environment, which alleged that respondent-mother did not have a home to take Ella to following their discharge from the hospital. Respondent-mother obtained a placement at The Shepherd's House in Mount Airy. On August 28, 2018, respondent-mother and Ella were discharged from the hospital and moved to The Shepherd's House.

¶ 9 On September 13, 2018, DSS reported that respondent-mother had made no progress on most of the requirements of her case plan, except she "has had clean drug screens since the children were placed in [the] custody of DSS." In addition, respondent-mother was participating in parenting classes, which was in compliance with her case plan, while living at The Shepherd's House. On or about October 4, 2018, respondent-mother's progress stalled. She admitted to taking Suboxone on several occasions, and DSS learned respondent-mother was spending significant time with respondent-father Cameron, though she refused to provide his contact information to DSS. On October 5, 2018, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging Ella was neglected due to her living in an environment injurious to her welfare. DSS obtained nonsecure custody of Ella that same day.

¶ 10 On September 13, 2018, an adjudication hearing was held for Molly and Will. Respondent-mother consented that Molly and Will were neglected juveniles based on the allegations contained in the July 13, 2018 juvenile petitions. Respondent-father Cameron did not attend the hearing. On October 29, 2018, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Molly and Will to be neglected juveniles. In an order entered after a subsequent disposition hearing, the trial court set the primary permanent plan as reunification, with a concurrent plan of guardianship with a court-approved individual. Respondent-mother was ordered to comply with her case plan and was allowed two hours of supervised visitation per week. Respondent-father Cameron was ordered to enter into a case plan and cooperate with DNA paternity testing. He was denied visitation "due to his lack of contact with DSS and engagement with the case." Subsequent DNA testing established respondent-father Cameron to be the father of Molly and Will.

¶ 11 At a December 6, 2018, adjudication hearing, respondent-mother consented that Ella was a neglected juvenile based on the allegations contained in the October 5, 2018 juvenile petition. Respondent-father Miles had been determined to be Ella's biological father through DNA testing, and he was present at the hearing. On January 16, 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Ella to be a neglected juvenile. In the accompanying disposition order, the trial court set the primary permanent plan as reunification, with a concurrent plan of guardianship with a court-approved individual. Respondent-mother was ordered to comply with her case plan and was allowed two hours of supervised visitation per week with Ella as well as two additional hours per week during respondent-mother's visitations with Molly and Will. Respondent-father Miles was ordered to enter into a case plan and was allowed two hours of supervised visitation per week.

¶ 12 Subsequent reports compiled by DSS and the guardian ad litem reflect the lack of progress made by any of the parents. Respondent-mother reported continued use of unprescribed Suboxone, marijuana, and methamphetamines, resulting in several positive drug screens. She also refused at least three requested drug screens. While she reported to the social worker that she had completed various assessments as required by her case plan, she did not comply with any of the recommendations from the assessments. She also refused to cooperate when told not to use inappropriate language, not to bring inappropriate food, not to discuss the facts of the case with and in front of the children, and not to tell them they would be coming home after the next hearing.

¶ 13 Respondent-father Cameron was incarcerated at the Franklin Correctional Center in November 2018 and was released on May 1, 2019. He requested visitation with Molly and Will, though he only attended two out of five possible scheduled visits. He never entered into a case plan with DSS. He did not stay in consistent contact with DSS after being released from custody and did not provide DSS with his contact information. On July 1, 2019, respondent-father Cameron was arrested and was in custody in the Surry County Jail with multiple pending felony drug charges.

¶ 14 On December 12, 2018, respondent-father Miles entered into a case plan and was attending visitations with Ella until he was incarcerated on April 10, 2019. He was released on May 27, 2019, but he was rearrested three days later and confined in the Stokes County Jail. Prior to his incarceration, he was not engaged with DSS and did not make any progress towards his case plan. While he still needed to complete parenting classes and mental health and substance abuse assessments, DSS noted that he was not able to satisfy those requirements of his case plan while he was in jail. Subsequent testimony from a DSS social worker established that respondent-father Miles had access to resources to assist with the completion of his case plan while incarcerated, but he had only availed himself of GED classes and not Narcotics Anonymous meetings, parenting classes, or cognitive behavioral intervention.

¶ 15 On September 10, 2019, the primary permanent plan for all of the children was changed to adoption, with a concurrent plan of reunification, as a result of the lack of progress by each of the parents. On November 7, 2019, DSS filed motions to terminate the parental rights of all three parents. The motions alleged there were grounds to terminate each parent's parental rights to their respective children pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6).

¶ 16 Following a hearing, the trial court entered orders on April 2, 2020, in which it determined grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of all parents for the grounds alleged in the motions. The trial court also determined it was in the children's best interests that respondent-parents’ rights be terminated. Respondent-parents appeal.

II. Respondent-Mother's No-Merit Appeal

¶ 17 Respondent-mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel has advised respondent-mother of her right to file a pro se brief on her own behalf with this Court and has provided respondent-mother with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-mother has not submitted any written arguments.

¶ 18 Respondent-mother's counsel identified three issues that could arguably support an appeal but stated why she believed each...