374 N.C. 752
N.C.2020Background
- April 2015: mother was found unresponsive twice (possible overdoses) with infant Adam in the car; DSS removed Adam and adjudicated him dependent.
- Trial court ordered substance‑abuse and mental‑health assessments, random drug screens, parenting classes, and suitable housing; mother entered and completed a six‑month program at Our House but declined a subsequent residential option (Grace Court).
- DSS changed permanency plan to adoption and filed a petition (May 2017) to terminate parental rights on multiple statutory grounds; trial court initially found grounds and terminated rights in 2018.
- Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for clarification of allegedly inconsistent findings about whether mother had made "reasonable progress." Trial court amended findings without taking new evidence (Mar–Apr 2019).
- Supreme Court (majority) affirmed: unchallenged findings show substance abuse was the core cause of removal and mother made only marginal/insufficient progress (e.g., declined Grace Court, remained on methadone without counseling, credibility concerns), and termination was in the child’s best interests. A three‑justice dissent would have reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability / timeliness of adjudication order | DSS: appeal from adjudication was untimely (filed >30 days) and not properly before the Court | Respondent: appealed both adjudication and disposition; timely from disposition | Appeal was properly before the Court because the disposition order (final) was timely appealed; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether findings support termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(2) (willful failure to make reasonable progress) | DSS: unchallenged findings (substance abuse = core cause; declined Grace Court; methadone without counseling; lack of credible counseling evidence) show insufficient progress | Respondent: completed Our House, was drug‑free for months, participated in methadone treatment, had housing and supervised visits—findings were inconsistent and insufficient | Affirmed: unchallenged findings support conclusion mother failed to make reasonable progress; termination ground sustained |
| Best‑interest dispositional analysis under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1110(a) | DSS/Guardian: factors favor adoption — child ~3, high likelihood of adoption, strong parent‑like bond with foster parent, weak parental bond with mother | Respondent: court improperly reduced choice to parent vs foster family; supervised visits context limited demonstration of parental bond | Affirmed: trial court's weighing of statutory factors was not an abuse of discretion; termination was in child’s best interests |
| Challenges to specific findings (housing, completion of Our House, credibility) | DSS: some findings are supported; the court may disregard minor inconsistent language | Respondent: certain findings conflict (e.g., completion of Our House; current housing), undermining adjudication | Court corrected/disregarded limited inconsistent language (e.g., misstated portion of one finding) but treated unchallenged findings as binding; overall findings sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 831 S.E.2d 305 (2019) (standard for reasonable progress and limits on equating case‑plan noncompliance with lack of reasonable progress)
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (unchallenged adjudicatory findings are binding on appeal)
- In re D.W.P., 373 N.C. 327, 838 S.E.2d 396 (2020) (binding effect of unchallenged findings at adjudication)
- In re I.G.C., 373 N.C. 201, 835 S.E.2d 432 (2019) (affirming termination under (a)(2) where treatment was inadequate in duration/intensity despite some compliance)
- In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165, 752 S.E.2d 453 (2013) (deferential review of dispositional best‑interest determinations)
- State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 372 S.E.2d 523 (1988) (abuse of discretion defined)