In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388

Background

Mother petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights to two daughters, alleging willful abandonment and willful failure to pay child support; petitions filed June 25, 2018.
Parents separated in 2012; a December 17, 2013 temporary custody order awarded mother sole temporary custody and barred father from contacting the children pending further order; father never moved to modify that no-contact provision.
Father was largely absent for years, conceded no contact from Dec 25, 2017 to June 25, 2018 (the six-month statutory window) and was incarcerated for most of that period; he admitted not seeking custody/visitation relief while incarcerated because he felt unable to parent.
At the October 17, 2018 hearing the trial court orally found willful abandonment (but not proven child-support nonpayment); written January 14, 2019 orders adjudicated both grounds and terminated father’s rights; father appealed.
The trial court found the children are strongly bonded to mother and stepfather, have no bond with father, are likely to be adopted by the stepfather, and that father’s home/life is unstable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father willfully abandoned the children under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)	Mother: Father had no contact for the six months before filing and for several years thereafter, evidencing a willful relinquishment of parental duties.	Father: The temporary custody order barred contact; thus his lack of contact was not willful.	Court: Affirmed — evidence supports willful abandonment; father failed to seek modification and admitted inaction.
Whether father’s incarceration precludes finding of willful abandonment	Mother: Incarceration does not excuse willful abandonment when parent could have sought relief or otherwise attempted contact.	Father: Incarceration prevented contact, mitigating willfulness.	Court: Rejected — incarceration alone is not a defense; father knew he could seek relief and did not.
Whether failure to pay child support was proven as ground for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(4)	Mother: Father failed to make support payments for the relevant period.	Father: Disputed; no child-support order or payment records were introduced.	Court: Trial court originally stated insufficient evidence at hearing; written orders included the ground but Court of Appeals affirmed on abandonment basis and did not need to decide support ground.
Whether termination is in children's best interests under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a)	Mother: Termination promotes stability, likelihood of adoption by stepfather, children’s bonds with current caregivers.	Father: He is now able to meet obligations and children could lose benefits if rights terminated.	Court: Affirmed — trial court properly weighed factors and did not abuse discretion.

Key Cases Cited

In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (clarifies appellate review of adjudication findings)
In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 293 S.E.2d 127 (adjudication of any single statutory ground supports termination)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 485 S.E.2d 612 (defines abandonment as willful relinquishment of parental duties)
Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 126 S.E.2d 597 (abandonment requires willful intent to escape parental responsibility)
In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 149, 804 S.E.2d 513 (incarceration alone is not dispositive in TPR cases)
In re P.L.P., 173 N.C. App. 1, 618 S.E.2d 241 (incarceration is not a shield in termination decisions)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 408 S.E.2d 729 (unchallenged findings binding on appeal)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 788 S.E.2d 162 (standard of review for dispositional stage)
In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165, 752 S.E.2d 453 (dispositional review and best-interests factors)
In re Clark, 159 N.C. App. 75, 582 S.E.2d 657 (appellate treatment when trial court finds multiple grounds)