In re A.G.D., 374 N.C. 317

Parents married (2008); two children (Amy b.2008, Andy b.2011). Parents separated in 2013 after Amy disclosed sexual abuse by father. Father later charged in multiple state and federal sexual offenses, including child pornography.
In May 2014 the district court awarded mother sole legal and physical custody and entered a no-contact provision prohibiting father from contacting the children absent further order; divorce entered July 2014.
Mother filed petitions to terminate father’s parental rights on June 26, 2018, alleging willful abandonment under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7). Relevant six‑month period: Dec 26, 2017–June 26, 2018.
Trial court found father had no meaningful contact with the children since March 8, 2013 (one attempted contact ~18 months later), made no efforts in the six months before filing, did not seek modification of the no-contact order, and was represented by counsel who could not ascertain whether he opposed termination.
Trial court concluded father willfully abandoned the children and that termination was in their best interests; father appealed, arguing incarceration and the no-contact order made contact impossible and he could not be found to have willfully abandoned.
Supreme Court affirmed: incarceration and the custody order were not an absolute shield because father had other available means to show interest (contacting mother/intermediaries or filing for modification) but did nothing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether willful abandonment under § 7B-1111(a)(7) was established	Father withheld presence, love, care and made no meaningful contact; his inaction shows purposeful relinquishment	No willful abandonment because court order and incarceration prevented contact, so lack of contact not voluntary	Affirmed: findings supported willful abandonment—father had means to show concern but did nothing; incarceration is not an absolute shield
Whether failure to seek modification of the no-contact custody order supports willfulness	Father could have filed for contact/visitation or otherwise inquired through mother or intermediaries; failure is probative of intent	Filing would have been futile because he could not show changed circumstances while charged/incarcerated	Court: failure to seek modification is relevant (but not sole basis); here combined findings suffice to show willfulness
Whether reliance on counsel statements and the sparse findings suffices as evidentiary support	Record (including counsel contacts and mother’s testimony) supports findings that father took no steps to preserve parental relationship	Counsel’s inability to state father’s wishes is not competent evidence; the record is too thin—findings insufficient	Court: findings (including counsel communications, mother’s testimony, and lack of attempts to contact) were adequate; counsel statements and surrounding facts supported the decision

In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 831 S.E.2d 49 (2019) (standard of review for § 7B-1111 adjudication)
In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 832 S.E.2d 692 (2019) (incarceration limits but does not excuse obligation to show interest)
In re K.N., 373 N.C. 274, 837 S.E.2d 861 (2020) (trial court must analyze facts/circumstances of incarceration when assessing neglect/abandonment)
In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 149, 804 S.E.2d 513 (2017) (incarceration neither automatic shield nor sword in TPR cases)
Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 126 S.E.2d 597 (1962) (definition of abandonment as willful neglect/refusal of parental obligations)
Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471, 586 S.E.2d 250 (2003) (custody modification requires substantial change in circumstances)
In re D.E.M., 257 N.C. App. 618, 810 S.E.2d 375 (2018) (consideration of what incarcerated parent could reasonably do to maintain contact)
In re B.S.O., 234 N.C. App. 706, 760 S.E.2d 59 (2014) (no effort to contact caretakers or support juveniles can support abandonment finding)