In re A.B.K.
808 S.E.2d 928
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- In Sept. 2015 Mecklenburg YFS removed infant Andy and 7‑year‑old Hayden for neglect/dependency after prolonged involvement addressing mother's homelessness and domestic violence (DV) between parents.
- In Feb. 2016 the court adjudicated the children neglected/dependent and ordered services; findings noted mother’s ongoing DV relationship with father, prior assaults on mother, and unstable housing/employment.
- Mother initially engaged in services (protective order, CASCADE treatment) but left treatment, resumed relationship with father, relapsed on alcohol, and experienced a life‑threatening hospitalization; father refused services and was convicted of assault.
- After a permanency review the plan changed from reunification to adoption; YFS filed motions to terminate parental rights (TPR) in Nov. 2016; TPR hearing occurred over three days in early 2017.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for TPR (neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, failure to pay cost of care) and determined termination was in each child’s best interest, emphasizing mother’s inability to separate from violent father and ongoing safety risks.
- The court noted children were together in foster care (placement not prospective adoptive), Hayden was improving in therapy though still behaviorally challenged, and an aunt later expressed interest in adopting both boys.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State/YFS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in choosing TPR under §7B‑1110(a) | TPR inappropriate because no adoptive placement yet; Hayden’s behavior reduces adoption likelihood and risks sibling separation; severing visitation harms Hayden | Court should consider statutory dispositional factors and child safety; mother’s continued bond with violent father creates extreme risk; TPR needed to accomplish adoption plan | Affirmed: Court properly considered §7B‑1110(a) factors and did not abuse discretion in finding TPR in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 644 S.E.2d 588 (2007) (dispositional findings binding if supported by competent evidence)
- Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 408 S.E.2d 729 (1991) (unchallenged findings are binding on appeal)
- In re A.J.M.P., 205 N.C. App. 144, 695 S.E.2d 156 (2010) (disposition under §7B‑1110(a) reviewed for abuse of discretion)