In re C.V.D.C., 374 N.C. 525

DSS received reports in Dec 2016–Jan 2017 that mother was homeless, using drugs, and left the children with someone unable to care for them; DSS placed the children in kinship care on Jan 3, 2017.
Mother had a longstanding substance abuse history, failed to maintain contact or visit after placement, and later was incarcerated; she entered into out-of-home family services agreements but did not complete goals.
DSS filed juvenile petitions (May 2017); the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent (Sept/Nov 2017) and later filed petitions to terminate parental rights (Aug 2018).
The children were moved to a licensed foster home in Oct 2018; DSS and the GAL reported the children were bonded to foster parents who wished to adopt.
At the combined termination hearing (Feb 2019) the court adjudicated grounds for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and held a dispositional hearing; the court terminated mother’s parental rights as being in the children’s best interests.
On appeal mother challenged only the dispositional determination, arguing the trial court failed to make the required written findings under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard of appellate review for a dispositional best-interest determination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a)	DSS/State: apply abuse of discretion to trial court’s best-interest determination	Respondent: legislative amendments require de novo review of trial court’s application of § 7B-1110 factors	Court reaffirmed abuse of discretion standard for best-interest determinations; statutory interpretation question reviewed de novo but outcome rests on discretionary review
Whether trial court made sufficient written findings under § 7B-1110(a) (factors 1–6) to support termination	DSS/GAL: uncontested evidence showed children are adoptable, foster parents seek adoption, termination advances permanent plan, and mother’s bond with children is minimal — findings suffice	Respondent: court failed to make written findings on likelihood of adoption, aiding permanent plan, bond with foster parents, and the children’s bond with mother	Court held findings sufficient: uncontested evidence supported factors (2), (3), (5); trial court adequately considered bond with mother (factor 4); no reversible error though trial courts should make findings on all statutory factors

In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3, 832 S.E.2d 698 (2019) (explains §7B-1110(a) factor consideration and written-findings approach)
In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 831 S.E.2d 62 (2019) (reaffirms abuse of discretion standard for dispositional best-interest rulings)
In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165, 752 S.E.2d 453 (2013) (discusses appellate deference in child-custody/termination dispositions)
Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537, 501 S.E.2d 649 (1998) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 501 S.E.2d 898 (1998) (trial court has broad discretion in child-custody matters)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) (pre-amendment precedent on termination review discussed)
In re H.D., 239 N.C. App. 318, 768 S.E.2d 860 (2015) (addresses uncontested-evidence concept in dispositional findings)
In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 319 S.E.2d 567 (1984) (requires sufficient evidence at dispositional hearing to determine child’s best interest)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 408 S.E.2d 729 (1991) (binding effect of unchallenged trial-court findings on appeal)
State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794, 785 S.E.2d 312 (2016) (de novo review applies to statutory-interpretation issues)
In re Appeal of Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P’ship, 356 N.C. 642, 576 S.E.2d 316 (2003) (explains de novo review standard)
Finley v. Sapp, 238 N.C. 114, 76 S.E.2d 350 (1953) (historic statement on trial-court discretion in custody)