In re A.L.S., 374 N.C. 515

Anne (born Nov. 5, 2012) was left with her third cousin Amber S. at nine weeks; respondent‑mother did not return for three weeks. Anne has lived with Amber and her husband Clinton (petitioners) since at least 2014.
Petitioners obtained an order on Dec. 1, 2016 granting them sole legal and physical custody of Anne; respondents never sought to modify that order.
Petitioners filed to terminate respondents’ parental rights on Aug. 28, 2018; the determinative six‑month period was Feb. 28–Aug. 28, 2018.
At trial mother twice sought continuances to secure testimony from her 16‑year‑old son; court granted a one‑month continuance but denied a second continuance after petitioners objected.
Trial court found decades‑long lack of contact (no contact in excess of three years), no effort to locate or seek modification, and no disability preventing contact, and concluded mother willfully abandoned Anne for at least six months pre‑petition.
Mother appealed denial of the second continuance and the adjudication of willful abandonment; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of motion to continue to obtain son's testimony	Petitioners: second continuance unnecessary; delaying beyond statutory limits without extraordinary circumstances	Respondent (mother): son’s testimony was "crucial" and would corroborate and negate willfulness; needed more time	Court: No abuse of discretion. Mother already had one month; no extraordinary circumstances shown; counsel gave vague offer of proof; no prejudice shown
Adjudication of willful abandonment under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(7)	Petitioners: mother made no effort to contact child in statutory period or preceding years; knew petitioners’ location; did not seek custody modification	Respondent: 2016 custody order restricted visitation and animus from petitioners excused lack of contact; financial/legal obstacles to contest custody	Court: Findings (unchallenged) support conclusion of willful abandonment; absence of contact and no attempts to modify custody permit inference of willfulness; adjudication affirmed
Best‑interest determination	Petitioners: termination was in child’s best interests	Respondent: did not contest best‑interest finding on appeal	Court: Best‑interest finding not contested and therefore not reviewed

State v. Walls, 342 N.C. 1 (1995) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion absent a constitutional claim)
State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690 (1970) (continuance based on constitutional right raises legal question reviewable de novo)
State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73 (2002) (constitutional issues not raised at trial are forfeited on appeal)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (1988) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16 (2019) (standard for reviewing adjudication and abandonment principles)
Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486 (1962) (definition of abandonment as relinquishment of parental duties and claims)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244 (1997) (reversed abandonment where illness and prompt attempts to contact undermined willfulness inference)
In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388 (2019) (abandonment may be found despite temporary no‑contact order or incarceration when parent makes no effort to contact)
State v. Cody, 135 N.C. App. 722 (1999) (better practice to support continuance with an affidavit)
In re D.Q.W., 167 N.C. App. 38 (2004) (affidavit or offer of proof supports motion for continuance)