374 N.C. 553
N.C.2020Background:
- Child ("Julie") removed by Caldwell County DSS in Aug 2017; adjudicated neglected and dependent in Nov 2017. Father (respondent) stood mute at adjudication.
- DSS alleged mother’s substance abuse/mental-health problems and that father had an extensive criminal history (including drug- and domestic-violence–related offenses). Court ordered a case plan for father (CCA addressing mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence; parenting classes; drug screens; supervised visitation conditions).
- Father had only one visit after removal, completed a CCA but denied substance abuse, then tested positive on a hair screen for hydrocodone/oxycodone (Feb 2018), refused follow-up assessment and multiple drug screens, and did not complete case-plan services.
- Permanency hearing: reunification ceased and plan changed to adoption (June 2018). Father was incarcerated for drug offenses and as a habitual felon on Sept. 19, 2018. DSS filed to terminate parental rights Aug. 2, 2018.
- Trial court (May 16, 2019) found grounds for termination based on neglect and abandonment and found termination was in Julie’s best interests. Father appealed; Supreme Court affirmed termination on neglect ground.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial-court findings are supported by competent evidence | Court relied on prior adjudication, CCA results, positive drug screen, refusals to re-test and to engage, lack of visitation, and failure to complete case plan | Challenges several specific findings (drug-test proof, reasons for refusing RHA, number of missed screens, DSS accommodation, inability to contact child while incarcerated) | Most challenged findings were supported; a few narrow subparts (one reason given for refusal; claimed 11 unsuccessful screens) were disregarded but did not alter the outcome |
| Whether neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) was proven (past neglect + likelihood of future neglect) | Past adjudication of neglect, father’s criminal/drug history, positive drug test, refusal to engage, minimal contact with child show past neglect and likelihood of repetition | Argues he was not responsible for mother’s conduct, had no parenting deficiencies, and incarceration precludes finding of neglect | Court held adjudication of neglect supported: parent need not have caused prior neglect; evidence showed past neglect and likelihood of future neglect (no meaningful change) |
| Whether father’s incarceration alone bars termination | DSS: incarceration is relevant as part of total circumstances (timing, lack of compliance before incarceration) | Father: incarceration cannot, standing alone, support termination; lack of evidence about his ability to contact child while incarcerated | Court reiterated incarceration alone is not dispositive but distinguished facts: father’s noncompliance largely predated incarceration, so incarceration did not bar termination |
| Whether DSS’s scheduling/efforts (e.g., referrals, drug testing logistics, notice) undermined findings | DSS contends it made reasonable efforts, and father refused/was unavailable for testing and did not request accommodations | Father contends DSS failed to accommodate work schedule, failed to refer to classes, and improperly arranged testing on short notice | Court found evidence supported that father refused or was unavailable for tests and failed to pursue schedule modifications; DSS’s alleged referral omissions did not excuse failure to obtain required negative screens |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) (standard of review and bifurcated adjudicatory/dispositional stages in TPR cases)
- In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) (appellate review of findings supporting termination)
- In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 319 S.E.2d 227 (1984) (when past neglect exists and child separated long time, must show likelihood of future neglect)
- In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (need to show past neglect and likelihood of future neglect; deference to trial court credibility/inferences)
- In re Z.V.A., 373 N.C. 207, 835 S.E.2d 425 (2019) (trial court must consider changed circumstances since prior adjudication)
- In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 147, 804 S.E.2d 512 (2017) (prior adjudication as relevant evidence in TPR of a different parent)
- In re K.N., 373 N.C. 274, 837 S.E.2d 861 (2020) (incarceration not dispositive; must analyze facts and duration)
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (judicial notice of prior findings; unchallenged findings binding on appeal)
- Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell, 301 N.C. 689, 273 S.E.2d 281 (1981) (trial court may take judicial notice of prior findings despite differing evidentiary standards)