In Re K.P-J., X.J., O.J., S.J., E.G.Jr., H.J
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-719 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Mecklenburg County Nos. 10 JT 111-13, 11 JT 63, 12 JT 378, 13 JT 609 K.P.-J., X.J., O.J., S.J., E.G., Jr., H.J. Appeal 2014 by by Judge District Court. Respondent-mother Louis A. from Trosch, order entered in Mecklenburg Jr., 21 April County Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 November 2014. No brief filed for Petitioner Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services. Peter Wood for Respondent-mother. No brief filed for Guardian ad Litem. STEPHENS, Judge. Respondent-mother parental rights to K. (“Ollie”), S.J. (“Holly”).1 appeals P.-J. an order (“Kelly”), E.G., Jr. X.J. terminating her (“Xena”), O.J. We affirm. 1 (“Sally”), from (“Ernie”), and H.J. Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1, we use pseudonyms to protect -2The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services (“YFS”), filed a juvenile petition on 15 June 2012 alleging that Kelly, Xena, Ollie, and Sally were neglected juveniles and that Ernie was an abused and neglected juvenile. YFS obtained juveniles on the same day. nonsecure custody of the In an order entered on 27 February 2013, the district court adjudicated Ernie abused and neglected, and adjudicated the other four juveniles neglected. born in October 2013. nonsecure custody Shortly after her birth, YFS obtained of Holly and filed a alleging that she was a neglected juvenile. on 28 March Holly was 2014, the district court juvenile petition In an order entered adjudicated Holly neglected. On 20 February 2013, YFS filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Respondent-mother alleging the following grounds for termination as to Kelly, Xena, Ollie, Sally, and Ernie: (1) neglect; (2) willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juveniles; and (3) willful abandonment. See (2013). filed YFS N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), a second petition on 12 (3), (7) November 2013 alleging neglect as the sole ground for termination as to Holly. the juveniles’ privacy. -3See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1). Following a hearing, the district court entered an order on 21 April 2014 concluding that termination of Respondent-mother’s parental rights as to Kelly, Xena, Ollie, Sally, following grounds: and Ernie was justified based upon the (1) neglect; (2) willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juveniles; and (3) willfully leaving the juveniles in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to removal. 1111(a)(1)-(3). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- The district court concluded that termination of Respondent-mother’s parental rights to Holly was justified based upon the ground of neglect. 1111(a)(1). juveniles’ parental appeal. The best court also interest rights. to See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- concluded that terminate Respondent-mother gave it was in the Respondent-mother’s timely notice of The district court also terminated the parental rights of the juveniles’ fathers, but they are not parties to this appeal. Respondent-mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief on her behalf in which counsel states that after “a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal,” he “concludes that the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an -4argument for relief and that the appeal would be frivolous.” Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(d), counsel requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has advised Respondent-mother of her right to file written arguments with this Court, and counsel has provided her with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-mother has not filed her own written arguments. After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the district court’s order. termination as Although the court erroneously concluded that to each juvenile was justified based upon a ground which was not alleged in YFS’s petitions, only one ground is necessary to support termination. Therefore, if this Court determines that the findings of fact support any one ground for termination, we need not review the other challenged grounds. See In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533, 540, 577 S.E.2d 421, 426 (2003). least Here, the district court’s findings of fact support at one ground Additionally, the for court termination did not as abuse to its each juvenile. discretion in determining that termination was in the best interests of the juveniles. Accordingly, following careful review of the record, -5we find no prejudicial terminating error in Respondent-mother’s the parental juveniles. AFFIRMED. Judges GEER and MCCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e). district court’s rights to order the
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.
