In re: A.H. & C.H.Â, 250 N.C. App. 546

Background

Mother’s two sons (Andrew, age 10 at removal; Clark, age 6) were removed after a Food Lion incident in April 2013 in which Mother physically assaulted Andrew; both children were adjudicated neglected and placed in DSS custody. Both children have developmental/behavioral needs (autism-spectrum traits, ADHD, epilepsy, depression, suicidality for Andrew).
Over 2013–2015 Mother participated intermittently in services; visits were supervised and later limited/modified after disruptive incidents and concerns about her anger and parenting; reunification efforts were ceased and the permanent plan was changed to adoption (alternate guardianship).
DSS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights in June 2015. Mother subpoenaed Andrew to testify and filed a pro se 10‑page "Parent Report" and other documents (the “Green Folder”).
The GAL moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that compelling Andrew to testify would cause emotional regression; the child’s therapist provided a letter supporting that position. The trial court held a hearing, quashed the subpoena, and later granted the GAL’s motion in limine excluding the Parent Report and contents of the Green Folder (stricken from the file).
The trial court found clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of statutory grounds for termination (neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, failure to pay reasonable portion of care, dependency) and, after a disposition hearing, concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. Mother appealed, arguing evidentiary restrictions and an improper best‑interest ruling.

Issues

Issue	DSS/GAL Position	Mother’s Position	Held
1) Whether the subpoena for Andrew should be quashed	Quash: compelling Andrew to testify would likely cause emotional harm and offer little probative value; subpoena unreasonable/oppressive	Quash was improper; Andrew’s testimony was relevant to Mother’s defense and best‑interest determination	Quash affirmed — court properly balanced relevance vs. harm and did not abuse discretion
2) Whether Mother was denied the right to make an offer of proof about Andrew’s testimony	Court may require proffer; prior hearing already contained a specific informal proffer of substance	Denial of proffer at disposition was error and violated preservation rules	No reversible error — Mother had already made a sufficient proffer at the motion‑to‑quash hearing; no abuse of discretion
3) Exclusion of Parent Report/Green Folder evidence	Filing pro se was improper; GAL’s motion in limine to strike/grant exclusion was appropriate; Mother could still properly introduce admissible items later	Exclusion prevented Mother from presenting evidence and was unfair/double standard	No reversible error — Mother’s counsel failed to attempt to admit the materials at trial (preservation) and some individual documents were later admitted when offered properly
4) Whether the trial court abused discretion in concluding termination was in the children’s best interests	Best‑interest findings (adoptability, permanency plan, bonding, foster relationships) supported by competent evidence	Mother argued strong parental bond and improbability of adoption (esp. for Andrew) made termination inappropriate	Affirmed — trial court made required §7B‑1110(a) findings supported by competent evidence; decision not arbitrary

Key Cases Cited

In re E.M., 202 N.C. App. 761 (N.C. Ct. App.) (standard: abuse of discretion review of best‑interest determination)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (N.C.) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Hurt, 235 N.C. App. 174 (N.C. Ct. App.) (motion to quash subpoena reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (N.C.) (two‑step termination process: adjudication and disposition)
In re Blackburn, 142 N.C. App. 607 (N.C. Ct. App.) (termination adjudication standards)
In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. 66 (N.C. Ct. App.) (adjudication phase and §7B‑1111 overview)
Matter of Shue, 311 N.C. 586 (N.C.) (trial court must hear competent, relevant evidence in best‑interest phase)
In re R.B.B., 187 N.C. App. 639 (N.C. Ct. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for best‑interest ruling)
State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359 (N.C.) (offer of proof requirement for preserved appellate review)
State v. Walston, 229 N.C. App. 141 (N.C. Ct. App.) (informal offer of proof may suffice when substance is shown)
In re J.A.O., 166 N.C. App. 222 (N.C. Ct. App.) (termination error where adoption was highly unlikely)
In re D.H., 232 N.C. App. 217 (N.C. Ct. App.) (absence of adoptive placement at time of hearing not automatic bar to termination)
Peters v. Pennington, 210 N.C. App. 1 (N.C. Ct. App.) (unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal)
Heatherly v. Indus. Health Council, 130 N.C. App. 616 (N.C. Ct. App.) (motion in limine rulings are interlocutory and may be revisited at trial)