In re N.B.

377 N.C. 349

856 S.E.2d 828

In the MATTER OF: N.B., N.M.B., M.R.

No. 291A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 23, 2021

Stephenson & Fleming, LLP, by Angenette Stephenson, for petitioner-appellee Orange County Department of Social Services.

Olabisi A. Ofunniyin, Charlotte, and Matthew W. Wolfe, Raleigh, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Dorothy Hairston Mitchell, for respondent-appellant mother.

J. Thomas Diepenbrock, Asheville, for respondent-appellant father.

ERVIN, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother Stacey W. appeals from the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights in N.B., N.M.B., and M.R., while respondent-father Jerald B. appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights in N.B.¹ After careful review of the record in light of the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's orders.

I. Factual Background

¶ 2 On 25 July 2017, a child protective services agency in Hagerstown, Maryland, received a referral expressing concern that Natasha and Nylah had been neglected by a woman with whom they had lived in Maryland during a time in which respondent-mother had been incarcerated. At the time of the making of this referral, Natasha, Nylah, and Merise were residing in Chapel Hill with the sister of a woman that respondent-mother described as her "foster mother" and that the children referred to as their "great-aunt" despite the absence of any biological relationship between this individual and either respondent-mother or the children. The children had begun living with this individual in January 2017, when this individual had traveled to Maryland and retrieved the children in light of respondent-mother's incarceration and the inability of the persons with whom the children had initially been left to provide adequate care for them.

¶ 3 Upon learning that the children had been living in Chapel Hill for the last six months, the Maryland child protective services agency contacted the Orange County Department of Social Services, which undertook responsibility for investigating the report. At the time that DSS became involved with the children, respondent-mother, who had been released on parole, had been unable to establish consistent employment or housing while respondent-father was incarcerated.

¶ 4 In the course of the investigation, Natasha and Nylah reported that respondent-mother had frequently been incarcerated and that they had been subjected to inappropriate discipline by caretakers, had been exposed to illegal drugs, and had endured inappropriate touching. In light of these allegations of abuse, a child medical evaluation was conducted upon Natasha and Nylah on 14 September 2017. At the conclusion of the examination, the examiner expressed concern that both Natasha and Nylah had been physically and sexually abused.

¶ 5 On 3 November 2017, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging that Natasha, Nylah, and Merise were abused, neglected, and dependent juveniles. In its petitions, DSS asserted that respondent-mother had a history of incarceration, during which the children had lived with multiple caretakers who subjected the children to excessive discipline, failed to provide the children with adequate food, and failed to provide the children with an adequate level of care. In addition, DSS alleged that the children had been physically and sexually abused while in respondent-mother's care and that respondent-mother had been released from incarceration and was threatening to remove the children from the home of their current caretaker. In order to prevent respondent-mother from taking the children into her care, DSS sought and obtained the entry of an order placing the children into nonsecure custody and allowing them to continue living with their current caretaker. Eventually, the children's caretaker became unable to care for them, so that the children entered foster care.

¶ 6 After an adjudicatory hearing held on 15 February 2018, the trial court entered an order on 26 March 2018 finding that the children were neglected and dependent juveniles. The trial court ordered that the custody of the children remain with DSS, required respondent-mother to comply with a family services agreement, and authorized respondent-mother to engage in supervised visitation with the children. In view of the fact that respondent-father continued to be incarcerated, the trial court ordered him to provide DSS with a specific release date.

¶ 7 On 19 July 2018, the trial court held an initial permanency planning hearing. On 31 August 2018, the trial court entered a permanency planning order in which it found that, while DSS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with their parents, neither respondent-mother nor respondent-father had been actively attempting to successfully reunify with the children or making themselves available to DSS. As a result, the trial court adopted a primary permanent plan of adoption, with a secondary permanent plan of reunification, and authorized DSS to seek the termination of the parents’ parental rights in the children.

¶ 8 On 21 October 2019, DSS filed separate motions seeking to have respondent-mother's parental rights in all three children terminated based upon 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 placement in DSS custody, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). In addition, DSS alleged that respondent-mother's parental rights in Natasha were subject to termination based upon abandonment, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7). Similarly, DSS filed a motion seeking to have respondent-father's parental rights in Natasha terminated on the basis of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) ; willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to Natasha's placement in DSS custody, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) ; and dependency. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6).

¶ 9 On 28 November 2018, after a hearing held on 1 November 2018, Judge Beverly Scarlett entered a permanency planning order in which she found that DSS continued to have difficulty in communicating with respondent-mother, that respondent-mother had sent clothing to the children on three occasions, and that respondent-father continued to be incarcerated. In addition, Judge Scarlett reiterated the trial court's earlier conclusion that neither parent was making adequate progress toward reunification with the children. As a result, Judge Scarlett retained the existing primary permanent plan of adoption and secondary permanent plan of reunification.

¶ 10 After a hearing held on 6 February 2020, the trial court entered orders on 9 March 2020 in which it determined that respondent-mother's parental rights in all three children and respondent-father's parental rights in Natasha were subject to termination based upon 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 placement in DSS custody, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) ; that respondent-mother's parental rights in Natasha were subject to termination based upon abandonment, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) ; and that respondent-father's parental rights in Natasha were subject to termination for dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6). In addition, the trial court concluded that the children's bests interests would be served by the termination of respondent-mother's parental rights in all three children and that Natasha's best interests would be served by the termination of respondent-father's parental rights.² Respondent-mother and respondent-father noted appeals to this Court from the trial court's termination orders.

II. Substantive Legal Analysis

A. Respondent-Mother's Appeal

¶ 11 In seeking relief from the trial court's termination orders before this Court, respondent-mother contends that the trial court erred by concluding that her parental rights in the children 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" the existence of one or more of the grounds for termination delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a). N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) (2019). This Court reviews a trial court's adjudicatory decision "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 at 253 (citing In re Moore , 306 N.C. 394, 404, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) ). In the event that the petitioner was able to prove the existence of one or more grounds for termination, "the court proceeds to the dispositional stage, at which the court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the juvenile to terminate parental rights." In re D.L.W. , 368 N.C. 835, 842, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (citing In re Young , 346 N.C. 244, 247, 485 S.E.2d 612 (1997) ; N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110 ). "[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).

¶ 12 A trial court may terminate parental rights for neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) in the event that it concludes that the parent has neglected the juvenile as that term is defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019). 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). Although the trial court is authorized to terminate a parent's parental rights in a juvenile based upon neglect that is occurring at the time of the termination...