In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787

July 2016 CPS report: father allegedly forced entry, assaulted mother while intoxicated; police arrested father; children witnessed incident and were scared.
DHHS obtained nonsecure custody; children placed in group home and later a licensed foster/preadoptive home after an unsuccessful trial home placement with mother.
Jan 2017: juveniles adjudicated neglected and dependent; both parents given case plans (psych evals, substance abuse/domestic-violence programs, housing/employment, parenting programs) and supervised visitation.
May 2018 permanency review: respondents not making adequate progress; primary plan changed to adoption; DHHS instructed to file for termination.
Aug 2018: DHHS filed to terminate parental rights; Apr 2019: trial court found statutory grounds and terminated both parents’ rights, finding termination was in the children’s best interests.
Appeal focused solely on the dispositional (best-interest) determination; Court of Appeals/Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner (DHHS) Argument	Respondents' Argument	Held
Standard of review for dispositional best-interest determination	Abuse of discretion is proper review	Argued for de novo review	Court reaffirmed abuse-of-discretion standard (In re Z.A.M.) and deferred to trial court unless decision was arbitrary
Sufficiency of evidence that children had a strong bond with preadoptive parents	Testimony (GAL and social worker) showed strong/"very bonded" relationship and children’s distress at possible removal	Father argued short placement duration made bond finding unsupported	Evidence supported reasonable inference of a strong bond; finding 38(e) upheld
Whether strong parent–child bond required rejection of termination or consideration of alternatives (e.g., guardianship)	Termination needed to accomplish adoption/permanency; other statutory factors favor termination	Respondents argued their strong bond with children favored non-termination or guardianship	Court held bond is only one §7B-1110(a) factor; trial court reasonably weighed factors and permissibly chose termination over guardianship
Trial judge’s post-hearing oral comment about "honoring" the parents’ relationship	DHHS: oral remark advisory and not part of order	Respondents: comment showed judge believed children should continue relationship with parents, conflicting with termination	Court found remarks were nonbinding, not in the written order; no reversible inconsistency with the judgment

In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (N.C. 1984) (sets out adjudicatory and dispositional stages in termination proceedings)
In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88 (N.C. 2020) (reaffirms abuse-of-discretion standard for dispositional best-interest determinations)
Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537 (N.C. 1998) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50 (N.C. 2020) (discusses review of dispositional findings and competent evidence standard)
In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432 (N.C. 2019) (holding that parental bond is one factor and may be outweighed by others)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (N.C. 2016) (trial court’s role in weighing credibility and drawing reasonable inferences)
Scott v. Scott, 157 N.C. App. 382 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court as sole judge of credibility and weight of evidence)
In re J.A.O., 166 N.C. App. 222 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (discusses risks of rendering a child a legal orphan where adoption is unlikely)
In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3 (N.C. 2019) (oral findings may differ from written order; written order controls)