In re: C.K.C. & W.T.C., 263 N.C. App. 158

Respondent (father) is biological parent of two juveniles, Cooper (b. 2009) and Wes (b. 2012); children were placed with maternal grandmother (petitioner) and maternal grandparents by a 14 Jan 2016 consent order.
The consent order granted joint legal custody to grandmother and the Duncans, gave primary physical custody to grandmother, terminated father’s child support obligation, provided no scheduled visitation for father, and stated the parties would not oppose termination of his parental rights.
On 19 Oct 2017 father filed a motion to modify the consent order requesting sole custody and asserting he was ready and able to parent the children.
On 16 Nov 2017 petitioner-grandmother filed a petition to terminate father’s parental rights alleging neglect and willful abandonment; termination hearing occurred and the trial court terminated father’s rights on 19 Mar 2018.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court erred in finding grounds of willful abandonment and neglect by abandonment, principally because (1) father’s October 2017 custody motion during the relevant six‑month window contradicted an intent to abandon, and (2) the trial court improperly relied on the consent order’s provision that the parties would not oppose termination—a provision void as against public policy and inconsistent with statutory procedures for terminating or relinquishing parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father willfully abandoned children under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(7)	Grandmother: father had effectively relinquished parental duties (consent order and prolonged lack of contact)	Father: he sought custody in Oct 2017, showing intent to retain parental rights and duties	Reversed — no willful abandonment: father’s Oct 2017 custody motion during the six‑month period undermined finding of willful abandonment; consent-order reliance invalid
Whether father neglected children by abandonment under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)	Grandmother: father’s conduct amounted to abandonment/neglect	Father: his custody motion and actions showed he did not intend to forego parental duties	Reversed — trial court erred: same reasoning as for willful abandonment; must show neglect at time of termination and consent-order basis is void

In re Adoption of Searle, 82 N.C. App. 273 (N.C. Ct. App.) (definition of abandonment requires willful determination to relinquish parental duties)
In re S.R.G., 195 N.C. App. 79 (N.C. Ct. App.) (parental abandonment findings must show actions inconsistent with desire to maintain custody; six‑month period is determinative)
In re D.T.L., 219 N.C. App. 219 (N.C. Ct. App.) (filing of custody action undermines finding of willful abandonment)
In re Jurga, 123 N.C. App. 91 (N.C. Ct. App.) (statutory juvenile termination procedures must be followed; private relinquishment agreements ineffective)
Foy v. Foy, 57 N.C. App. 128 (N.C. Ct. App.) (agreement to relinquish parental rights is void as against public policy)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244 (N.C. 1997) (neglect determinations for termination must be based on evidence at time of termination proceeding)