254 N.C. App. 252
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother moved from Michigan to Guilford County, NC with several children after obtaining a Michigan custody order; Michigan later relinquished jurisdiction over three children (Abigail, Riley, Robert) to North Carolina.
- DHHS obtained nonsecure custody in NC after reports that Mother threatened suicide and slapped a child; Mother was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and Alcohol Use Disorder and had inconsistent treatment and unstable housing.
- Father (biological parent of Abigail, Riley, Robert) lived in Michigan, was not located or served early in the NC proceedings, was later found by DHHS over a year after Michigan’s relinquishment and after multiple permanency hearings; Father had domestic-violence convictions and unstable housing/employment.
- DHHS changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption in June 2015; subsequent permanency hearings in 2015–2016 reaffirmed adoption as primary plan and left open service agreements if parents sought reunification.
- DHHS filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights in April 2016; trial court found clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supporting termination (multiple statutory grounds for Mother; neglect and failure to pay cost of care for Father) and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. Appeals followed by both parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether NC had subject‑matter jurisdiction over Father re: Riley, Robert, Abigail | NC acquired temporary emergency jurisdiction and, after Michigan relinquished, authority under UCCJEA § 50A‑203 because NC was the children’s home state | Father: Michigan retained continuing jurisdiction; NC lacked authority because he lacked notice of Michigan’s relinquishment and NC adjudication | Court: NC properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction and obtained continuing jurisdiction after Michigan’s facially valid relinquishment; affirmed jurisdiction |
| 2) Whether Father was denied notice/due process by lack of service earlier in proceedings | Service at termination hearing and appointment of counsel satisfied due process for termination phase | Father: Lack of earlier service of juvenile petitions and permanency hearings deprived him of meaningful participation and due process | Court: Earlier lack of service does not defeat jurisdiction for termination hearing; Father was properly served for termination and represented—no due process violation |
| 3) Whether Mother’s children were proven dependent under § 7B‑1111(a)(6) | Dependency supported by psychological diagnoses, failure to follow treatment, inconsistent therapy, and risk to children | Mother: Evidence dated; recent peer‑support testimony suggested improvement and insufficient proof that incapacity persisted | Court: Findings supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (clinical evaluations, continued noncompliance) — dependency sustained |
| 4) Whether termination was in best interests re: Riley and Robert (adoptability/behavior) | GAL and supervisor testimony, therapy progress, and bonding with caregivers supported adoptability and best interests | Mother: Behavioral issues and past trauma make adoption unlikely; trial court insufficiently detailed findings on behavior | Court: Evidence showed improvement and bonding; trial court’s findings not manifestly unsupported — termination in children’s best interests affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W.S., 194 N.C. App. 439 (Court addressed UCCJEA jurisdictional requirements in juvenile proceedings)
- In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. 34 (temporary emergency jurisdiction and notice in juvenile cases)
- In re V.L.B., 168 N.C. App. 679 (psychological evaluations and stale evidence can support termination when conditions persist)
- In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165 (termination order can cure defects in prior permanency planning orders)
- In re D.C., 236 N.C. App. 287 (termination order providing detailed findings can remedy inadequate permanency findings)
- In re J.A.O., 166 N.C. App. 222 (adoptability analysis where long foster history and many transfers weighed against termination)