835 S.E.2d 417
N.C.2019Background
- DSS had long involvement after the father’s repeated assaults on the children and substance‑abuse/domestic‑violence issues; father convicted of multiple assaults and released from prison in Oct. 2016.
- In Dec. 2016 mother allowed the father back into the home (violating supervision conditions) and voluntarily placed the three children in foster care so he could live there. DSS obtained nonsecure custody Jan. 2017 and children were adjudicated neglected Mar. 2017.
- Court-ordered case plan required parenting classes, completion of an APC domestic‑violence victims’ program and compliance with recommendations, substance‑abuse/mental‑health treatment, and demonstration of a safe, stable, substance‑free, DV‑free home for six months.
- Mother completed some services (parenting program, APC partially) but repeatedly lived with the father, missed APC sessions, tested positive for marijuana, and prevented/failed to permit reliable home assessments; permanency plan changed to adoption Jan. 2018.
- DSS petitioned to terminate parental rights Jan. 22, 2018; after hearings the district court found grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests, terminating both parents’ rights Dec. 12, 2018.
- North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review and affirmed: the court held a single ground (willful failure to make reasonable progress) was supported and termination was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother willfully failed to make reasonable progress under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(2) | Mother continued to live with and defend the father, failed to correct conditions that led to removal, and did not establish safe, stable housing or accept responsibility | She argued she made reasonable progress by completing required programs and addressing parenting/domestic‑violence concerns | Court held mother failed to make reasonable progress; findings support termination under § 7B‑1111(a)(2) |
| Whether the district court impermissibly shifted the burden to mother to prove safe, stable housing by noting she refused access to home | DSS relied on evidence that parents canceled or blocked home visits, preventing verification of housing safety | Mother claimed her testimony contradicted the finding and that DSS bore the burden to prove lack of housing | Court held no improper burden shift; credibility determinations and inferences from canceled visits supported the finding |
| Whether mother completed her case plan and thus termination was improper | DSS argued partial compliance insufficient: she failed to establish safe/stable, substance‑free, DV‑free home and continued cohabitation with father | Mother claimed she had completed the only case plan in the record and made reasonable progress | Court held although some programs were completed, overall the case plan was not completed because core conditions (safe stable home, separation from father, accepting responsibility) remained uncorrected |
| Whether termination was an abuse of discretion at disposition (best interest factors under § 7B‑1110) | Termination would aid adoption permanence; child was doing well in therapeutic foster placement with strong bond to foster family and needed ongoing therapy and permanence | Mother argued district court failed to make sufficient findings on adoption likelihood, mother–child bond, and relationship with prospective adoptive parents | Court held dispositional findings were adequate; court considered relevant § 7B‑1110 factors and did not abuse its discretion in finding termination in child's best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (N.C. 1984) (standard for reviewing adjudicatory findings in termination proceedings)
- In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394 (N.C. 1982) (review standard for findings and conclusions in juvenile matters)
- In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (N.C. 2016) (dispositional stage: best‑interest determination and standard of review)
- In re T.N.H., 831 S.E.2d 54 (N.C. 2019) (only one statutory ground is required to support termination)
- In re D.H., 232 N.C. App. 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) (district court must make written findings only as to relevant § 7B‑1110 factors)
- Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355 (N.C. 1968) (trial court’s role in assessing witness credibility and drawing reasonable inferences)