In re A.L.L., 376 N.C. 99

Background

Mother gave birth to Ann in July 2015 and was diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (including schizophrenia); DSS removed Ann at birth and placed her with foster parents (petitioners).
Mother participated in services (parenting classes, assessments, counseling) and attended visits but continued to exhibit severe symptoms, deny illness, and demonstrate unsafe or inappropriate parenting behavior.
Davidson County dependency proceedings resulted in appointment of the petitioners as Ann’s court-approved legal permanent guardians; guardians and Ann resided in Davie County.
Petitioners (as legal permanent guardians) filed a petition in Davie County to terminate mother’s parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (dependency/incapacity) and (a)(7) (willful abandonment); the Davie County trial court granted termination on both grounds.
On appeal the North Carolina Supreme Court held Davie County had subject-matter jurisdiction but reversed the termination: (1) § 7B-1111(a)(6) cannot be satisfied where the child resides with legal permanent guardians pursuant to a valid permanency order, and the trial court made no findings about availability of an alternative care arrangement; and (2) the record lacks findings or clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that mother willfully abandoned Ann under § 7B-1111(a)(7).
Result: the termination order was reversed; guardianship status of petitioners was not disturbed by this ruling.

Issues

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction to hear termination petition filed in Davie County	Petitioners (guardians) filed where child resided; § 7B-1101 confers jurisdiction in that district	Respondent: Davidson County permanency order precluded another district from terminating rights; integrated juvenile case requires deference to original court	Court: Davie County had jurisdiction under § 7B-1101; prior permanency order did not deprive jurisdiction
Whether dependency under § 7B-1111(a)(6) supports termination	Mother is incapable of care and failed to identify any appropriate alternative child care arrangement	Mother: child resides with court-approved permanent guardians, so the statutory requirement (lack of appropriate alternative) cannot be met	Court: When a child resides with legal permanent guardians pursuant to a valid permanency order, § 7B-1111(a)(6) cannot be satisfied; trial court also failed to make required findings about availability of alternative arrangements, so (a)(6) vacated
Whether willful abandonment under § 7B-1111(a)(7) supports termination	Petitioners point to mother’s refusal of medication, missed/deficient parenting, and mental-health records during the six-month window	Mother: conduct stems from severe mental illness; evidence does not show deliberate intent to abandon or relinquish parental claims	Court: Trial court made no findings about the determinative six-month period or willful intent; record does not show clear, cogent, convincing evidence of willful abandonment; (a)(7) vacated

Key Cases Cited

In re J.A.E.W., 375 N.C. 112 (trial court may terminate parental rights based on adjudication of statutory grounds)
In re E.B., 375 N.C. 310 (subject-matter jurisdiction is indispensable and distinct from dependency proceedings)
In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (juvenile code aims to protect children while respecting family autonomy; challenges to jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
In re K.L.T., 374 N.C. 826 (characterizing § 7B-1111(a)(6) as addressing availability or unavailability of alternative child care arrangements)
In re C.B., 245 N.C. App. 197 (Court of Appeals holding that a parent’s affirmative steps to identify alternatives may be relevant to (a)(6))
In re L.H., 210 N.C. App. 355 (parent must take steps to propose viable alternatives; placement alone does not automatically mean parent had an alternative)
In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71 (willful abandonment requires proof of both actual abandonment and willful intent during the six-month window)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244 (insufficient findings or evidence require reversal of termination for lack of clear, cogent, and convincing proof)
State v. McDowell, 329 N.C. 363 (statutory constructions that focus on objective availability rather than a litigant’s personal efforts)
Hart v. Thomasville Motors, 244 N.C. 84 (void judgments and the centrality of subject-matter jurisdiction)