In re C.G

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-971 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 March 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: C.G., M.G., A.G. Orange County Nos. 11 JT 76-78 Appeal by respondent-father from orders entered 27 December 2012 and 29 May 2013 by Judge Joseph Moody Buckner in Orange County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2014. Holcomb & Cabe, LLP, by Samantha H. Cabe and Carol J. Holcomb, for petitioner-appellee, Orange County Department of Social Services. Troutman Sanders LLP, by Whitney S. Waldenberg for Guardian ad Litem. Hunt Law Group, P.C., by James A. Hunt for respondentappellant, father. ELMORE, Judge. -2Respondent-father ceasing appeals reunification from efforts and district court terminating rights to his children Carl, Mary, and Amy 1. On 6 October 2011, Orange County his orders parental We affirm. Department of Social Services ( DSS ) filed petitions alleging that Carl, Mary, and Amy were neglected and dependent juveniles. DSS alleged that respondent-father and the mother ( respondents ) had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence. October 2011, dependent. the The trial parties court agreed By consent order filed 11 adjudicated that legal the children custody of the children would remain with respondents, who voluntarily placed the children with paternal relatives. DSS obtained legal custody of the children in February 2012 when the paternal long-term. The relatives could not care trial court conducted for the children subsequent permanency planning hearings and, on 6 December 2012, ceased reunification efforts with the father. Respondent-father preserved his right to appeal from the order ceasing reunification efforts. On 30 January respondent-father s 1 2013, parental DSS filed rights to motions the to terminate children. DSS The pseudonyms Carl, Mary, and Amy are used throughout this opinion to protect the identity of the children and for ease of reading. -3alleged that respondent-father s parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (neglect), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2013) (failure to make reasonable progress), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (2013) (failure to pay reasonable cost of care), and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (2013) (dependency). The mother relinquished her parental rights to the children on 18 March 2013. The termination of parental rights hearing was held on 2 May 2013, after which the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father s parental rights on the basis of neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. The trial court determined that termination of respondent- father s parental rights was in the best interests of Mary, and Amy and entered orders terminating his Carl, rights. Respondent-father appeals. I. Cessation of Reunification Efforts In his first argument on appeal, respondent-father contends that the trial court erred when it ceased reunification efforts. We disagree. This Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate -4findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court s conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition. In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007). Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991) (citations omitted). When a trial court ceases reunification efforts with a parent, it is required to make findings of fact pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b). In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. at 213-14, 644 S.E.2d at 594 (citations omitted). A trial court may cease reunification efforts upon making a finding that further efforts would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time[.] Id. at 214, 644 S.E.2d at 594 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b)(1)). Respondent-father does not challenge any evidentiary findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence, nor does he challenge the conclusions of law as unsupported by the findings of fact. court Nevertheless, respondent-father argues that the trial abused its discretion in ceasing reunification efforts -5because he had substantially complied with his caseplan [sic]. The trial court s findings of fact show that respondent-father made some progress towards correcting the conditions that led to the children s removal by substance abuse program. respondent-father treatment had programs[,] recently enter[ing] a year-long However, the trial court found that been in and has minimized out of the substance effect his abuse chronic substance abuse has had on the family[,] and has shown little accountability for his actions. Further, the trial court found that reunification would be futile and/or inconsistent with the juveniles health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time. the unchallenged findings of fact As such, we conclude that support decision to cease reunification efforts. the trial court s See In re T.K., 171 N.C. App. 35, 38, 613 S.E.2d 739, 741 (holding that a parent s failure to make sufficient progress on correcting the conditions that led to removal supports conclusions made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b)), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 163, 622 S.E.2d 494 (2005). II. Grounds for Termination -6Respondent-father next contends that the trial court erred in finding and concluding that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. We disagree. The standard for review in termination of parental rights cases is whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether these findings, in turn, support the conclusions of law. In re Clark, 72 N.C. App. 118, 124, 323 S.E.2d 754, 758 (1984). Here, the trial court found that respondent-father s parental rights were subject to termination based upon three grounds: neglect (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)), failure to make reasonable progress (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2)), and dependency (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6)). Respondent- father, however, only challenges the trial court s determination regarding neglect. Because respondent-father does not challenge the trial court s determinations on the issue of failure to make reasonable progress or dependency, respondent-father s argument. we need not address See In re Pierce, 67 N.C. App. 257, 261, 312 S.E.2d 900, 903 (1984) (a finding of one statutory ground is sufficient rights). III. Best Interests to support the termination of parental -7Respondent finally contends the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of his children. After an adjudication that one or We disagree. more grounds for terminating a parent s rights exist, the [trial] court shall determine whether terminating juvenile s best interest. the parent s rights is in the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) (2013). In determining whether terminating the parent s rights is in the juvenile s best interest, the court shall consider the following: (1) The age of the juvenile. (2) The likelihood juvenile. of adoption of the (3) Whether the termination of parental rights will aid in the accomplishment of the permanent plan for the juvenile. (4) The bond between the juvenile and the parent. (5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile and the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, custodian, or other permanent placement. (6) Any relevant consideration. Id. Here, the trial court made the following findings of fact to support its conclusion that it is in the best interests of the children that respondent-father s rights be terminated: -817. . . . Although [Carl] was initially anxious in foster care, he has been in therapy and has made significant improvements. His current foster parents want to adopt him. 18. . . . Since being in her current foster home, [Mary] has made improvements in all regards. The foster parents want to adopt [Mary]. 19. [Amy] is in the same foster home as her sister and they will be adopted together[.] 20. The children rarely mention their father and there is no reportable bond between them. 21. The children are bonded to their foster parents, appear happy and healthy. 22. The biological mother of the children has relinquished her parental rights, thus freeing them for adoption. . . . . 30[b]. Termination of Respondent s parental rights is necessary to implement the permanent plan of adoption. 30[c]. Termination of Respondent father s parental rights is the only barrier to the adoption of the child and this barrier can be overcome in a reasonable period of time. Respondent does not argue that the trial court failed to make the findings of fact required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B1110(a). Rather, respondent argues that since the respondent- mother s parental rights were not terminated at the time of the -9trial court s order, termination of his parental rights did not advance the Respondent s goal of argument permanence is without for merit the children[.] because the mother relinquished her parental rights before the termination orders were entered, as was recited in finding of fact 22. contrary to respondent-father s respondent-father s parental rights adoption of the child[ren][.] trial court s abuse of dispositional discretion in the assertion, was the Thus, terminating only barrier to Based on this evidence and the findings trial of fact, court s we discern determination no that termination was in the best interests of Carl, Mary, and Amy. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s orders ceasing reunification efforts and terminating respondentfather s parental rights. Affirmed. Judge CALABRIA and Judge STEPHENS 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.