In the Matter of: H.S.M
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA05-1483 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 July 2006 IN THE MATTER OF: H.S.M. and S.S.H., Minor Children. Buncombe County Nos. 04 J 236-37 Appeal by respondent from orders entered 27 April 2005 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr., in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 June 2006. Lisa M. Morrison for Buncombe County Department of Social Services petitioner-appellee. Judy N. Rudolph for Guardian Ad Litem. Leslie C. Rawls for respondent-appellant. McCULLOUGH, Judge. Respondent-father parental rights. appeals We affirm. from an order terminating his H.S.M. was born in May 2000, and S.S.H. was born in April 1999. Respondent is their father. From August 2003 through January 2004, the Buncombe County Department of Social Services ( DSS ) received several reports indicating that the children were being neglected by their mother due to her abuse of drugs. On 7 April 2004, the children were placed in the care of DSS by a non-secure custody order. held on 27 May 2004. An adjudicatory hearing was Respondent did not appear at the hearing and his whereabouts was unknown. On 8 July 2004, nunc pro tunc 27 May -22004, the children were adjudicated neglected and dependent juveniles in that they did not receive proper care, supervision or discipline from their parents, that they lived in an environment injurious to their welfare, and the parents were unable to provide for their care or supervision. On 22 September 2004, petitions to terminate parental rights were filed by DSS alleging that respondent had neglected and abandoned the children and had failed to establish his paternity. On 28 and 30 March 2005, hearings were held on the petition to terminate respondent s parental rights. On 27 April 2005, the trial existed court determined respondent s parental that grounds rights. The trial to court terminate found that respondent had neglected the children and that it was reasonably probable that there would be a repetition of neglect. The court cited respondent s serious, longstanding untreated substance abuse problems and anger management problems and his failure to comply with services offered by DSS to alleviate these problems. Accordingly, the court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children that respondent s parental rights be terminated. Respondent now appeals. Respondent s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its parental discretion rights was by in concluding the best that termination interests of the of his children. Respondent contends that he had begun to address his substance abuse problems and further also cites Bost v. Van Nortwick, 117 N.C. App. 1, 449 S.E.2d 911 (1994), arguing that the trial court s -3finding that the children were doing well in their current, preadoptive foster care placement was insufficient to satisfy the best interest requirement for termination in light of his paramount rights as their father. After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of the parties, we affirm. Once the trial court has found that grounds exist to terminate parental rights, the court shall issue an order terminating the parental rights of such parent with respect to the juvenile unless the court shall further determine that the best interests of the juvenile require that the parental rights of the parent not be terminated. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 7B- 1110(a) (2003) (amended 2005 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 398, s. 17). The trial the court s decision to terminate parental rights at disposition stage is discretionary. See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 110, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984). A ruling based on a trial court's discretion will not be reversed without a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion. In re Black, 76 N.C. App. 106, 110, 332 S.E.2d 85, 87 (1985). Here, the trial court concluded in its discretion that it was in the best interests of the child that respondent s parental rights be terminated. Respondent contends that the court abused its discretion in making this conclusion, citing Bost. However, we find Bost to be distinguishable from the instant case. This Court in Bost stated that a finding that the children are well settled in their new family unit . . . does not alone support a finding that it is in the best interest of the children to terminate -4respondent's parental rights. Bost, 117 N.C. App. at 8, 449 S.E.2d at 915 (emphasis added). Here, however, the finding that the children were doing well with their foster families was not the sole ground in support of the court s conclusion that termination was in the children s best interests. The trial court also based its conclusion on findings that respondent had a long history of drug abuse, had been unable to maintain sobriety, and had failed to comply with court orders aimed at addressing his drug abuse. The court found that respondent had failed to attend treatment and continued to abuse drugs, as evidenced by criminal activities used to finance drug purchases. The court also noted that respondent was incarcerated and not projected to be released for approximately two years, children. provided and was unable to provide any placement for the Furthermore, the court found that respondent had never consistent care for the children, and has been incarcerated in other states for most of their lives. Finally, the court found that respondent had not seen the children since January 2004, had not contributed any financial support, and had failed to send any cards, gifts or letters to the children. Thus, we hold that based on these findings, as well as the Court s finding that the children were doing well in their pre-adoptive placement, the trial court could reasonably conclude that termination of respondent s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Accordingly, the order terminating respondent s parental rights is affirmed. Affirmed. -5Judges HUDSON and STEELMAN concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
