In re P.R.F.

379 N.C. 298

864 S.E.2d 334

In the MATTER OF: P.R.F., S.G.F., Z.N.V., and M.A.V.

No. 109A21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed November 5, 2021

Mona E. Leipold, for petitioner-appellee Burke County Department of Social Services.

Mark D. Frederick, Raleigh, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

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

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights in her minor children P.R.F., S.G.F., Z.N.V., and M.A.V., aged three, seven, twelve, and fourteen, respectively, at the time of termination.¹ Respondent-mother's appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on her client's behalf pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e). After careful consideration of the record in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the issues identified by respondent-mother's appellate counsel as potentially supporting an award of relief from the trial court's termination order lack merit and therefore affirm the trial court's order.

¶ 2 In May 2018, a social worker with the Burke County Department of Social Services (BCDSS) visited respondent-mother's home following a report of concerns of injurious environment, improper discipline, and substance abuse. After acknowledging daily marijuana use, respondent-mother agreed with BCDSS's request to place the children in a safety resource placement with family members and friends.

¶ 3 On 1 July 2018, the family taking care of Pat took him to the emergency room when he was having difficulty breathing. Subsequent imaging at Levine Children's Hospital revealed that Pat suffered from a heart condition that should have been addressed earlier. Later that month, Zed and Meg were seen for a Child Medical Exam during which they described seeing respondent-mother and her husband use marijuana and engage in domestic violence.

¶ 4 On 30 July 2018, BCDSS filed a petition alleging that the four children were neglected juveniles. On 20 September 2018, BCDSS filed a new petition alleging that Pat was a neglected and dependent juvenile. That same day, the trial court granted non-secure custody of Pat to BCDSS. On 8 November 2018, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Sara, Zed, and Meg to be neglected juveniles, and adjudicating Pat to be a neglected and dependent juvenile. BCDSS gained custody of the children, and respondent-mother was given one hour of supervised visitation per week with the older three children and was allowed to attend Pat's ongoing medical appointments.

¶ 5 The trial court ordered respondent-mother to enter into a case plan with BCDSS and required that before she could reunite with her children, respondent-mother must: complete domestic violence, mental health, and substance abuse assessments and follow all recommendations; submit to random drug screens; obtain safe, sanitary, and stable housing; obtain legal and verifiable income; complete an age-appropriate parenting program; and ensure that the health needs of the children were met.

¶ 6 Respondent-mother entered into the case plan as ordered and made some progress toward addressing some of its goals, in that she completed parenting education, completed a domestic violence assessment, obtained consistent employment, and participated in some visitations with the children. However, she missed several random drug screens, and tested positive for marijuana on several other occasions. Respondent-mother missed several visitation appointments due to her work schedule or failing to confirm the visits 48 hours in advance. As a result of respondent-mother's 9 January 2020 mental health assessment, the psychologist diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and cannabis use disorder. During this case-plan period, respondent-mother contributed zero dollars to the cost of care of her children until August 2020, when child support began to be garnished from her wages.

¶ 7 On 21 January 2020, BCDSS filed a petition seeking to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights. The substantive portions of the adjudication stage of the termination of parental rights process were heard on 14, 27, and 28 August 2020, and the disposition stage occurred on 24 September 2020.

¶ 8 On 17 December 2020, the trial court entered an order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights.² Specifically, the trial court concluded that grounds had been proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights pursuant to: N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (neglected the juveniles); N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of cost of care for the juveniles although physically and financially able to do so); N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (dependency); and N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (willful abandonment of the juveniles). After considering the requisite criteria under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110, the trial court found that termination was in the best interests of the juveniles. Respondent-mother timely filed a notice of appeal on 7 January 2021.

¶ 9 As noted above, respondent-mother's appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on her client's behalf as authorized by N.C. R. App. P. Rule 3.1(e). In her no-merit brief, respondent-mother's appellate counsel asserted that the trial court's conclusions of law that grounds had been proven to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights on the basis of subsections (a)(1), (6), and (7) of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 were not supported by competent findings of fact or evidence. However, respondent-mother's appellate counsel found no merit to the argument that the trial court's conclusion that grounds for termination had been proven on the basis of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) lacked competent findings of fact or evidence.

¶ 10 N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) provides that a parent's parental rights may be terminated when it is shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that a parent of a juvenile in the custody of a county department of social services, a licensed child-placing agency, a child-caring institution, or a foster home has "for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition or motion willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juvenile although physically and financially able to do so." N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (2019). This Court has held that "absence of a court order, notice, or knowledge of a requirement to pay support is not a defense to a parent's obligation to pay reasonable costs, because parents have an inherent duty to support their children." In re S.E. , 373 N.C. 360, 366, 838 S.E.2d 328 (2020) ; see also In re J.A.E.W. , 375 N.C. 112, 117–18, 846 S.E.2d 268 (2020). Rather, "[w]here a parent has the ability to pay some amount greater than zero but pays nothing, the parent has...