In re M.A.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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-195 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: M.A.G. Davidson County No. 12 JT 134 Appeal by respondent father from order entered 21 November 2013 by Judge April C. Wood in Davidson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June 2014. Assistant County Attorney Christopher M. Watford for petitioner-appellee Davidson County Department of Social Services. Windy H. Rose for respondent-appellant father. Laura Bodenheimer for guardian ad litem. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Respondent appeals from the trial court s order terminating his parental rights to his minor child M.A.G. ( Molly 1). We affirm. 1 We use a pseudonym to protect the juvenile s privacy and for ease of reading. -2On 3 August 2012, the Davidson County Department of Social Services ( DSS ) obtained non-secure custody of Molly and filed a petition alleging she was a neglected and dependent juvenile. After a hearing on 26 September 2012, the trial court entered adjudication neglected complete and and a disposition dependent parenting orders and capacity adjudicating directing Molly respondent assessment and to to: be (1) age-appropriate parenting classes; (2) pay child support; (3) submit to random drug screens, complete a substance abuse assessment, and comply with all recommendations; (4) maintain safe and suitable housing for himself and the juvenile; (5) obtain and maintain a legal source of steady income to support himself and the juvenile; and (6) comply with abuser s treatment groups. Respondent plan, and, by failed order to comply entered with 13 his court-ordered May 2013, the trial case court relieved DSS from making further reunification efforts with him. Molly s mother relinquished her parental rights to Molly on 12 July 2013, and the trial court entered an order on 14 August 2013 directing DSS to proceed with terminating respondent s parental rights. DSS subsequently filed a petition to terminate respondent s parental rights, alleging as grounds: (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- -31111(a)(1) (neglect); (2) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (failure to make reasonable progress); and (3) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) juvenile). (failure After to pay holding a for the hearing cost on of the care of petition on the 31 October 2013, the trial court entered an order on 21 November 2013 in which it concluded that grounds existed to terminate respondent s 1111(a)(1) parental and (3), rights and under that N.C. Gen. termination parental rights was in Molly s best interest. Stat. of § 7B- respondent s Respondent filed timely notice of appeal from the trial court s order. Respondent s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on respondent s behalf in which she states she has conducted a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal and concludes that this appeal presents no issue which would alter the ultimate Appellate result. Procedure Pursuant 3.1(d), to counsel North Carolina requests that Rule this of Court conduct an independent examination of the case. In accordance with Rule 3.1(d), counsel wrote respondent a letter on 17 March 2014 advising him of his right to file pro se arguments directly with this Court within thirty days of the date of the filing of the no-merit brief. Counsel attached to the letter a copy of the record, the transcript, and the no- -4merit brief filed by counsel. Respondent has not filed his own written arguments with this Court. In addition to seeking review pursuant to Rule 3.1(d), counsel directs our attention to potential issues with regard to the trial court s acknowledges that termination these issues order. would not Counsel, alter however, the ultimate result, as the trial court s findings of fact are supported by record evidence, the findings support both grounds for termination, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in Molly s best interests. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1110, -1111 (2013). After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find court s order. any possible prejudicial error in the trial Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s order terminating respondent s parental rights to Molly. AFFIRMED. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge ELMORE 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.
