In re I.K.
377 N.C. 417
| N.C. | 2021Background:
- Iliana (born 2012) was placed with her maternal grandmother on April 26, 2016 after her mother’s incarceration and respondent father’s unstable housing and substance issues.
- DSS opened CPS involvement based on concerns dating to 2014 (hoarding, substance use, domestic discord); respondent repeatedly refused drug screens, had positive tests, and was convicted of assault on a female after a 2016 domestic incident.
- Trial court ordered services, set permanency plan of guardianship (with reunification as secondary), granted then rescinded unsupervised visitation when parents appeared under the influence, and ultimately ceased reunification efforts in 2017–2019.
- Court of Appeals vacated the 2017 guardianship order in Aug. 2018 for insufficient findings; on remand DSS presented new evidence (Sept. 2018 positive marijuana test; continued unsafe, overcrowded housing at respondent’s mother’s trailer) and the trial court again awarded guardianship to maternal grandmother.
- The Court of Appeals (divided) affirmed; the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court’s findings (substance use, housing, domestic violence) were supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether those findings cumulatively established that the father acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected parental status. The Supreme Court affirmed; Justice Earls dissented.
Issues:
| Issue | OCDSS's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether findings that respondent continued illegal substance use are supported by clear and convincing evidence | Multiple refusals to test, one post-treatment positive hair/urine test, drug-seeking texts show ongoing use | Father completed treatment, only one post-treatment positive test, many subsequent negatives; Court should not reweigh evidence | Affirmed: findings supported; court may credit test + text evidence and refusals and need not reweigh credibility |
| Whether respondent lacked safe, stable housing for Iliana | Home at respondent’s mother’s was unsafe/overcrowded (holes in floor, clutter/hoarding, two-bedroom trailer), father earned income but remained there and had no plan to move | Father improved some conditions before second hearing; housing insecurity stems from poverty/eviction, not volitional refusal to secure housing | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported findings that housing was unsafe/unstable for Iliana |
| Whether domestic-violence concerns persisted | History of domestic violence with mother, conviction for assault, missed DV program sessions; post-treatment August 2018 disturbance with mother showed continued risk | The August 2018 incident was a nonviolent loud argument; no proof of resumed DV with partner; father completed DV program | Court rejected characterization of the mother incident as physical violence but found domestic-violence concerns overall supported by evidence and upheld that finding |
| Whether cumulative findings show respondent acted inconsistently with constitutionally protected parental status to justify ceasing reunification and granting guardianship | Cumulative evidence (substance use, unstable housing, DV history/noncompliance) shows unwillingness/inability to parent; guardianship is in child’s best interest | Father argues isolated incidents, completion of programs, and housing hardship do not show volitional conduct inconsistent with parenting rights; majority’s standard too low | Affirmed: court held findings (viewed cumulatively) met clear-and-convincing standard and supported legal conclusion respondent acted inconsistently with parental status; guardianship affirmed (Justice Earls dissented) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57 (N.C. 2001) (clear-and-convincing burden for finding parent acted inconsistently with parental status)
- Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537 (N.C. 2011) (legal conclusion reviewed de novo; findings of fact binding if supported by competent evidence)
- Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (N.C. 1997) (volitional parental conduct required to displace constitutionally protected status)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in custody and care)
- Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142 (N.C. 2003) (evidence must be viewed cumulatively; examples where conduct did not displace parental status)
- Speagle v. Seitz, 354 N.C. 525 (N.C. 2001) (extreme parental conduct can forfeit parental status)
- Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 (N.C. 2009) (definition and threshold of the clear-and-convincing standard)