372 N.C. 372
N.C.2019Background
- Bev (born 2015) was removed from mother Lauren B.’s home after a domestic disturbance where Bev had a bruise; DSS obtained nonsecure custody and filed a neglect petition.
- DSS and mother agreed to a court-approved case plan addressing domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, medication management, parenting, and stable income/visitation requirements.
- Over ~12+ months, the trial court found mother failed to comply with nearly all material case-plan requirements (drug use, medication mismanagement, missed therapy/neuropsych exam, limited parenting skill application, hostile interactions with DSS).
- DSS filed to terminate parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (willfully left child out of home >12 months without showing reasonable progress correcting conditions that led to removal).
- Trial court terminated mother’s parental rights; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the “conditions which led to removal” are limited to the immediate triggering events alleged in the initial petition (domestic violence/bruise) and that many case-plan deficiencies were not properly notice-linked to removal.
- Supreme Court granted discretionary review and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the statutory phrase includes both direct and indirect factors that contributed to removal and that mother’s failure to comply with relevant case-plan provisions supported termination.
Issues
| Issue | Granville County DSS / Guardian ad Litem Argument | Lauren B. (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “conditions which led to removal” under § 7B-1111(a)(2) | Broad: includes direct and indirect factors that contributed to removal (e.g., substance abuse, mental health, parenting), not limited to triggering event | Narrow: limited to the triggering event(s) and conditions alleged in initial petition (here, domestic violence/bruise) | Held for DSS: phrase includes factors that directly or indirectly contributed to removal; court may consider case-plan conditions that address those factors |
| Relevance of non-triggering case-plan provisions to § 7B-1111(a)(2) inquiry | Compliance with court-approved case plan is relevant if provisions address issues that contributed to removal | Irrelevant: failure to satisfy provisions unrelated to the petition’s stated grounds cannot support termination under (a)(2) | Held for DSS: court-approved case-plan compliance is relevant when plan targets causes that led to removal |
| Notice requirement — must conditions be alleged in initial petition/order to be considered | Allegation of (a)(2) sufficed; statutes and case law permit evolving understanding and modified plans; initial petition need not enumerate all contributing conditions | Court of Appeals: without specific allegations in petition/nonsecure custody order, mother lacked notice of other conditions | Held for DSS: (a)(2) ground was alleged; nothing requires limiting conditions to those listed in the initial petition or order |
| Sufficiency of trial-court findings to support (a)(2) termination | Mother’s extensive noncompliance with case plan and minimal progress supported a finding she willfully left child >12 months without reasonable progress | Mother argued many trial findings lacked evidentiary support and did not show failure to correct domestic-violence-related problems | Held for DSS: unchallenged findings (drug use, missed treatment, poor parenting progress, hostility, etc.) supported conclusion mother failed to make reasonable progress under (a)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.O.A., 818 S.E.2d 331 (N.C. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision below reversing termination)
- In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394 (parental-rights review standard; findings must be supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (adjudication/disposition stages in termination proceedings)
- In re J.G.B., 177 N.C. App. 375 (consideration of case-plan compliance under § 7B-1111(a)(2))
- In re A.R., 227 N.C. App. 518 (broad construction of court-ordered case-plan requirements to remediate underlying causes)
- In re S.N., 194 N.C. App. 142 (limited progress can support (a)(2) termination)
- In re S.R.G., 195 N.C. App. 79 (procedural requirement that (a)(2) be alleged in termination pleading)
- Lunsford v. Mills, 367 N.C. 618 (statutory construction principles)
- Diaz v. Division of Social Servs., 360 N.C. 384 (give effect to plain statutory language)
- D.L.W. v. (opinion), 368 N.C. (court acknowledged composite causes for removal and upheld (a)(2) reasoning)