In re B.L.H., 376 N.C. 118

Child (pseudonym Beth) entered DHHS custody after being found unsupervised and the grandparents' home was deemed unsafe; adjudicated neglected and dependent in April 2017.
Respondent father has a history of substance abuse, criminal convictions, intermittent prison terms, relapses, overdoses, and poor compliance with services.
Respondent failed to complete required services (substance-abuse treatment, random drug screens, parenting evaluation/class), did not visit or financially support Beth, and lacked stable housing/employment; he was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing.
DHHS filed to terminate parental rights in December 2018; termination hearing occurred March 11, 2019; trial court orally stated findings were made by "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence" and entered a written termination order April 24, 2019.
The written order contained detailed findings but did not expressly recite the statutory "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard; respondent appealed on that ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) requires the trial court to affirmatively state the "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard in its written termination order	Announcement in open court suffices; the written order need not repeat the oral statement if record shows correct standard	Trial court committed reversible error by not stating the statutory standard in the written termination order	The court held § 7B-1109(f) requires the trial court to announce the standard, but that announcement may be made either orally at the termination hearing or in the written order; oral statement here satisfied the requirement and the termination was affirmed

In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (establishes that grounds for termination must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
In re Church, 136 N.C. App. 654 (Court of Appeals held trial court must affirmatively state the standard of proof in its order)
Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Town of Nags Head, 299 N.C. 620 (statutory-construction principles: ascertain legislative intent from plain language)
Duggins v. N.C. State Bd. of Cert’d Pub. Acct. Exmr’s, 294 N.C. 120 (ambiguous statutes construed to promote the object of the statute)
Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem, 302 N.C. 550 (avoidance of surplusage in statutory interpretation)
Elec. Supply Co. of Durham v. Swain Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651 (legislative purpose is first ascertained from the plain words of the statute)