In Re N.D.S

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-826 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Wake County No. 12 JT 219 N.D.S. Appeal by respondent from orders entered 30 September 2013 and 5 May 2014 District Court. by Judge Monica M. Bousman in Wake County Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 November 2014. Roger A. Askew for petitioner-appellee Wake County Human Services. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, by Sye T. Hickey, for guardian ad litem. Windy H. Rose for respondent-appellant mother. DIETZ, Judge. Respondent mother appeals from orders ceasing reunification efforts and terminating her parental rights to N.D.S. (“Nate”).1 As explained below, Respondent’s persistent refusal to address her mental health needs, to find stable, suitable housing, to attend parenting and anger management courses, and to address 1 The parties agreed to the use of this pseudonym. -2her substance decisions to abuse cease problems, all support reunification Respondent’s parental rights. the efforts trial and court’s terminate Accordingly, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On 31 August 2012, Wake County Human Services obtained nonsecure custody of Nate, who was two and one-half weeks old, and filed a juvenile petition asserting that he was neglected. The petition alleged that Respondent used a knife during a domestic dispute with her brother, an incident that occurred in Nate’s presence and resulted in criminal charges against both siblings. The petition also cited Respondent’s refusal to accept assistance with her “limited parenting skills,” her disruption of a safety placement arranged for Nate by the county agency, and her untreated mental health issues. The district court entered an adjudication of neglect on 6 November 2012, based on stipulated facts consistent with the allegations raised in the petition. At disposition, the court ordered Respondent to comply with the provisions of her Family Services attend Agreement. That agreement visitation; follow all required Respondent recommendations of to her psychological evaluation and substance abuse assessment; obtain anger management treatment; attend parenting classes and -3“demonstrate learned material during interactions with” Nate; and obtain and maintain stable housing and employment that were sufficient for herself and her child. After permanency planning and review hearings held in January, June, and August of 2013, the district court ceased efforts toward reunification and changed Nate’s permanent placement plan to adoption by order entered 30 September 2013. Respondent filed timely notice preserving her right to appeal the ceasing of reunification efforts. Wake County Human Services filed a motion to terminate Respondent’s parental rights on 6 January 2014, based on neglect and her failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to Nate’s placement outside of the home in August 2012. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2013). The district court heard evidence on 26 March 2014 and entered an order on 5 May 2014 holding that there were grounds for termination and further concluding that termination of Respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Respondent then timely appealed the termination order -4and the earlier order ceasing reunification efforts.2 Analysis I. Grounds to Cease Reunification Efforts Respondent first claims the district court erred in ceasing reunification (2013). findings efforts Respondent of reunification fact, was under does but N.C. not argues erroneous Gen. Stat. challenge that because the she the § 7B-507(b)(1) trial conclusion “had court’s to cease substantially complied with her case plan in order to reunite with Nate” at the time of the 23 August 2013 review hearing. “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.’” In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 214, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b)(1)). Though characterized by statute as a finding, “the determination that grounds exist to cease reunification efforts under [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 7B507(b)(1) is in the nature of a conclusion of law that must be 2 We note that the putative father named by Respondent denied paternity of the child and refused to participate in these proceedings. Although the district court also terminated the parental rights of the putative father, he is not a party to this appeal. -5supported by adequate findings of fact.” In re E.G.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 750 S.E.2d 857, 867 (2013). “This Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, 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.” 644 S.E.2d at 594. appeal. In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. at 213, Uncontested findings of fact are binding on Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). Respondent argues that this case is controlled by In re Eckard, 148 N.C. App. 541, 559 S.E.2d 233 (2002). In Eckard, this Court reversed a trial court order ceasing reunification efforts. But the facts of Eckard are readily distinguishable. The evidence in that case showed that the mother “has grown and matured to a level as to not be a danger to [the child]”; that she “continues to remain employed, pay child support, and visit her child regularly”; and that she “has done everything requested by DSS,” “is following her case plan,” and has “no severe mental health ability to parent.” issues that would interfere Id. at 545, 559 S.E.2d at 235. with her -6Here, by contrast, the trial court found precisely the opposite facts in each of these areas, and Respondent does not challenge these findings. For example, the trial court found that although Respondent had completed anger management classes, she remained “unable to demonstrate an ability to remain calm,” such that her “grandparents have indicated that they are afraid of [Respondent]” and “[l]aw enforcement continues to be called to the residence because of domestic disturbances.” Respondent also obtained a psychological evaluation, but failed to comply with its obtaining recommendations a psychiatric by attending evaluation regular to therapy determine or by whether medication was indicated for her mental health issues. Fifty- one weeks after Wake County Human Services assumed custody of Nate, Respondent was working two part-time jobs, but had yet to obtain housing grandparents. for marijuana suitable for Nate and was living with her Respondent had also “continued to test positive although the decreasing levels of the drug.” last [three] tests [showed] While Respondent had improved her bond with Nate through visitation, her “behavior has been such that the social worker has not felt comfortable either leaving the visitation room during visits or recommending any unsupervised visitation for the mother.” -7In sum, although we acknowledge that Respondent had shown some progress with her Family Services Agreement at the time of the 23 August 2013 review hearing, serious deficiencies remained that support the trial court’s decision to cease reunification efforts. In particular, as the trial court found, Respondent failed to address her mental health needs, her lack of stable housing, her anger management issues, and her substance abuse problems. concluding inconsistent Accordingly, that the district reunification with [Nate]’s within a reasonable time.” efforts safety and court did “would need not be for a err in futile or safe home See In re M.J.G., 168 N.C. App. 638, 649-50, 608 S.E.2d 813, 819-20 (2005) (upholding cessation of reunification efforts despite mother’s claim of progress on her case plan). As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in electing to cease reunification efforts pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b)(1). II. Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Respondent next claims that there were insufficient grounds to support termination of her parental rights. termination of parental rights under N.C. In reviewing the Gen. Stat. § 7B- 1109(e), we must determine whether the district court’s findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, -8and whether the findings support the court’s conclusions of law. In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000). “If there is competent evidence, the findings of the trial court are binding on appeal,” In re McCabe, 157 N.C. App. 673, 679, findings. 580 S.E.2d 69, 73 (2003), as are all uncontested Koufman, 330 N.C. at 97, 408 S.E.2d at 731. review conclusions of law de novo. We In re J.S.L., 177 N.C. App. 151, 154, 628 S.E.2d 387, 389 (2006). The district court adjudicated grounds for termination of Respondent’s parental rights based on her neglect of Nate under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1). A neglected juvenile is one who, inter alia, “does not receive proper care [or] supervision” from the juvenile’s parent or who “lives injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” 101(15). in an environment N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- In order to support an adjudication under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), “[n]eglect must exist at the time of the termination hearing.” In re C.W., 182 N.C. App. 214, 220, 641 S.E.2d 725, 729 (2007). Where “the parent has been separated from the child for an extended period of time, the petitioner must show that the parent has neglected the child in the past and that future.” the parent is likely to neglect the child in the Id. The determination that a child is neglected is a -9conclusion of law. In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997). We conclude termination order that the uncontested establish grounds to findings in the terminate Respondent’s parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1). In addition to acknowledging Nate’s prior adjudication of neglect on 7 November 2012, the court found the following: 18. During the first nine to twelve months . . . the child was placed in the custody of [Wake County Human Services], the social worker found reasoning and communicating with the mother difficult. . . . Despite the social worker’s efforts to schedule assessments or appointments for services around regularly scheduled visits to avoid the requirements of extra travel and interference with the mother’s work schedule, the mother often declined to attend those assessments or appointments. The mother was often unwilling to provide information . . . that would have enabled the social worker to provide assistance or allow the mother to meet the requirements of the Court’s orders. . . . . 20. The relative with who[m] the mother had a violent altercation in August 2012 . . . does not currently live with the mother. Concerns remain, however, regarding possible continuing family discord in the home. The mother has admitted that law enforcement has been called to the home on more than one occasion when the mother was present since the child was removed. . . . In September 2013, [Nate’s] great-grandmother with whom -10the mother lives requested that the mother be taken off the lease with the Housing Authority and expressed fear of the mother. Within a few days of this request, the great-grandmother called the Housing Authority and requested that the mother be placed back on the lease. The mother could be heard yelling and screaming in the background during the call. The mother continues to live with her grandparents. Family discord which could have a detrimental effect on the child remains a concern despite the mother’s completion of the anger management curriculum. 21. Prior to moving, the mother did not take necessary steps to make the residence appropriate for the child. She moved from that residence in September 2013 and lived in various places until moving to her current residence in November 2013. The mother provided no evidence regarding the suitability of this residence. The prior residence was infested with bedbugs. The family did not comply with the landlords instructions regarding the treatment of bedbugs. When the mother moved out, she lived at a hotel and moved items from the residence into storage. The social worker has not assessed the condition of this housing because of a concern that furniture or other items from the prior housing may be present in the new residence. 22. The mother has not had stable employment and presented no evidence as to what her income is currently. The mother provided paystubs for a period of three and one-half months that she was employed at a local Wendy’s restaurant. . . . The mother left that position because she could not “deal with” going back and forth between her home and the restaurant. She indicated that she worked at that position to earn money to -11meet her child support obligation. The mother claims to be working at Hardees but provided no verification. 23. The mother completed a parenting education course but has been unable to consistently demonstrate the learned skills during her visits with the child. She continues to need assistance during visits in order for the child to remain safe and does not accept redirection from the social worker. She sets no limits for the child and brings no snacks, juice or toys for the child. She has not demonstrated that she understands the developmental needs of the child. She does not know his clothes sizes or what size bed he needs. She has failed to monitor his movements so that he does not hurt himself during visits and has failed to demonstrate that she understands what actions or arrangements would be necessary to provide for his safety. . . . The mother’s attendance at visits was not consistent. The mother has been unable to accept parenting coaching by the social worker and failed to take advantage of oneon-one parenting coaching in visits offered by the parenting instructor. The parenting coaching sessions were stopped after the mother failed to attend several sessions. . . . . 24. The mother completed a psychological evaluation in November 2012 but has not complied with the recommendations and/or failed to comply in a timely manner such that the compliance was not effective in correcting the conditions being addressed.3 3 Respondent’s evaluation, completed an Axis I diagnosis of Major Episode, Mild (Rule Out Bipolar diagnosis of Personality Disorder paranoid and anti-social features. on 16 November 2012, produced Depressive Disorder, Single Disorder), and an Axis II Not Otherwise Specified with Although Respondent had no -12The scheduling of the interpretive appointment was difficult and required three (3) attempts before the mother attended the appointment. . . . [T]he mother was unable to accept the comments and explanation being provided by the evaluator and, after becoming argumentative, asked if she could leave. She was not able, therefore, to benefit from the interpretive session. The mother did not comply with the recommended medication management until October 2013 and has not taken the prescribed medication on a regular basis despite her admission that it made her feel better and the opinion of the evaluator that the mother needed assistance to stabilize her emotions. The mother completed an anger management class but has not been able to demonstrate the skills learned during the class as evidenced by continued family discord in her home and her interaction with the social worker. The mother has participated inconsistently in individual counseling. As of June 26, 2013, she had attended only sixty (60%) per cent of the scheduled sessions despite the existence of significant mental health conditions as stipulated at the adjudication. Between November 2013 and January 2014, the mother did not seek to participate in individual counseling. She offered no evidence that she was participating in individual counseling at the time of the [termination] hearing. Based on these findings, the trial court determined “[t]hat the mother’s lack of compliance with the [c]ourt’s orders and the Out of Home Family Services Agreement demonstrate that there is cognitive limitations affecting her ability to parent Nate, the psychologist noted that her personality disorder “makes [Respondent] less likely to be receptive to feedback from others and make behavioral changes.” -13a reasonable probability of a repetition of . . . neglect if the child were to be returned to her care.” Respondent findings, but does not argues challenge that the the trial trial court’s court’s factual adjudication of neglect was erroneous because she “substantially completed her case plan.” She contends that, because her “mentally unstable brother” moved out of her residence within two months of Nate’s removal from her home, she successfully “corrected environment that gave rise to Nate’s ‘neglect.’” the As for her positive drug screens, Respondent asserts that drug testing was not included in the court’s initial dispositional order but was added by the court in January of 2013. We reject these arguments and hold that the trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusion that grounds exists to terminate Respondent’s parental rights based on neglect. The trial court found that Respondent had both parenting issues and mental health issues that could lead to neglect in the future, and that Respondent persistently failed to address her anger and mental health lessons and issues—notably refusing to by refusing regularly to take attend her parenting mental health medication. The court also found that Respondent continued to lack -14suitable housing and employment and was unable to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the conduct and planning necessary to care for Nate if he were returned to her. See In re M.N.C., 176 N.C. App. 114, 123, 625 S.E.2d 627, 633 (2006); see also In re K.D., 178 N.C. App. 322, 329, 631 S.E.2d 150, 155 (2006) (affirming adjudication of neglect based on mother’s “struggles with parenting skills, domestic violence, and anger management, as well as her unstable housing situation”). support an adjudication of neglect. With These findings respect to the positive drug test results, we note that random drug screening was one of evaluation, the recommendations and that recommendations as Agreement. In any support conclusion its she part of Respondent’s agreed of event, of her the to neglect adjudication 1111(a)(1). of neglect under N.C. App. those Services findings considering Accordingly, we affirm N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- In light of this ruling, we need not review the 1, 8, 618 S.E.2d 241, 246 curiam, 360 N.C. 360, 625 S.E.2d 779 (2006). AFFIRMED. fact without second ground for termination found by the court. 173 by Family court’s even Respondent’s positive drug test results. the abide original trial psychological In re P.L.P., (2005), aff’d per -15Judges STROUD and DILLON 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.