In re S.L.B.B
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-116 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 June 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.B.B. Catawba County No. 11 JA 177 Appeal by respondent-mother from order entered 6 November 2013 by Court. Judge J. Gary Dellinger in Catawba County District Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 May 2014. Staff Attorney Valeree R. Adams, for petitioner-appellee Catawba County Department of Social Services. Alston & Bird LLP, by Matthew P. McGuire, for guardian ad litem. Levine & Stewart, by James E. Tanner, III, for respondentappellant mother. CALABRIA, Judge. Respondent-mother ( respondent ) appeals from the trial court s order terminating her parental rights to her minor child Shaney. 1 1 We affirm the trial court s order. A pseudonym is used to protect the identity and privacy of the juvenile. -2Respondent was fourteen years old when she gave birth to Shaney in 2009. Respondent was unable to identify Shaney s biological father. old, respondent Respondent was When Shaney was approximately eight months assaulted her subsequently by shaking adjudicated her excessively. delinquent for the assault. On 29 June 2011, the Catawba County Department of Social Services ( DSS ) filed a juvenile petition alleging Shaney was abused, neglected, and dependent. On 30 June 2011, the trial court entered a non-secure custody order placing Shaney in DSS custody. as an On 8 November 2011, the trial court adjudicated Shaney abused and neglected juvenile. The court ordered respondent to enter into and comply with a family services case plan. The case plan required respondent to obtain a psychological evaluation and comply with all recommendations; obtain a parenting assessment and follow the recommendations; obtain an assessment of her intellectual functioning; comply with mental health services; demonstrate improved capacity as a result of participation in services; and attend school daily. On 4 June 2012, the trial court conducted a planning hearing. The court found that [i]t is permanency uncertain whether the minor child will return to the home of her mother -3within six months [respondent s] skills. due ability to to the learn uncertainty and demonstrate regarding parenting The trial court implemented a concurrent permanent plan of adoption and reunification. Another permanency September 2012. as directed, and planning hearing was conducted on 10 Respondent had failed to take her medications the trial court found that [d]espite the services offered to her and the various parenting classes in which she has participated, [respondent] is unable to care for herself, let alone provide care for her minor child. The court changed the permanent plan to adoption. On 9 November respondent s 2012, parental DSS rights filed on a the motion grounds to of terminate neglect, willfully leaving the minor child in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions which led to the removal of the child from the home, and incapability of providing supervision of the minor child. for the proper care and After a hearing, the trial court found the existence of all grounds alleged by DSS and concluded that termination of respondent s parental rights was in the best interests of the minor child. On 6 November 2013, -4the trial court parental rights. entered its order terminating respondent s Respondent appeals. Respondent argues that the trial court erred by finding and concluding rights. that grounds existed for terminating her parental 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. App. 118, 124, 323 S.E.2d 754, 758 In re Clark, 72 N.C. (1984). Unchallenged findings of fact are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). In the instant case, respondent does not challenge any of the trial court s findings. Thus, we must only determine if these unchallenged findings support the trial court s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent s parental rights. A trial court may terminate parental rights based on a finding that the parent has neglected the juvenile. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1). N.C. Gen. A neglected juvenile is defined, in part, as one who does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from a parent or caretaker, or who lives in an -5environment injurious to the juvenile s welfare[.] Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2013). sufficient evidence to terminate showing proceeding. N.C. Gen. Generally, [a] finding of neglect parental neglect at the rights time must of be the based on termination In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 248, 485 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1997) (citation omitted). However, when there is no evidence of neglect at the time of the termination proceeding . . . parental rights may nonetheless be terminated if there is a showing of a past adjudication of neglect and the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence a probability of repetition of neglect if the juvenile were (sic) returned to her parents. In re Reyes, 136 N.C. App. 812, 815, 526 S.E.2d 499, 501 (2000) (citation omitted). Respondent contends the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights based on neglect because there was no evidence that suggested [respondent] posed any threat of anger or violence toward Shaney at the time of the termination hearing[,] nor was there evidence that respondent s parents home posed the same risk of neglect to a three-year-old Shaney with an almost 18-year-old [respondent] in it as it did when Shaney was an infant and [respondent] was a misbehaving and unruly 14-year-old. -6Contrary to respondent s contentions, the trial court s order includes ample findings that would support a conclusion that she would continue to neglect returned to respondent s care. that respondent behavior, that did not Shaney if the child was The court specifically found believe respondent s she needed intellectual to correct disabilities her and behavioral problems would make it difficult for respondent to put Shaney s needs before her own, and that respondent did not have the financial resources to care for Shaney or herself. The trial not court also found that respondent s therapist did observe any improvement in her behavior following respondent s participation in therapy. Finally, the trial court found that respondent is not a fit and proper person to have custody of the minor child . . . . She continues, to this date, to engage in the same behaviors which led to the adjudication of neglect. She has not taken seriously the efforts to correct her behaviors and the likelihood of continued neglect is high if the child were to return home. We conclude that the trial court s unchallenged findings of fact support the Shaney would court s likely respondent s care. conclusion be that repeated if respondent s she was neglect of returned to Accordingly, respondent s contention that -7the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights on the ground of neglect is overruled. Since we have determined that termination was proper on the ground of neglect, it is unnecessary for us to consider the additional grounds for termination found by the trial court. See In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533, 540, 577 S.E.2d 421, 426 (2003) (a finding of one statutory ground support the termination of parental rights). is sufficient We affirm the trial court s order terminating respondent s parental rights. Affirmed. Judges STROUD and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). to
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.
