In re J.O.D., 374 N.C. 797

Background

Joshua was born November 12, 2017; his meconium tested positive for cocaine and methadone, and both parents had histories of opioid and other substance use and positive drug tests around the time of his birth.
DSS obtained nonsecure custody on December 5, 2017; the trial court adjudicated Joshua neglected on February 14, 2018 and ordered both parents to follow family services agreements (substance‑abuse treatment, random drug screens, parenting classes, housing/employment).
Parents initially participated in an Intensive Reunification Program (IRP) and had expanded visitation, but both relapsed (May–June 2018), had multiple positive drug tests, missed services and visits, and were discharged from IRP; overnight visits were suspended June 9, 2018.
DSS filed a petition on January 2, 2019 to terminate parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(1) (neglect / likelihood of future neglect) and (a)(2) (willful leave >12 months without reasonable progress).
After an April 2019 hearing, the trial court (May 17, 2019) found grounds under both subsections, concluded termination was in Joshua’s best interest, and terminated both parents’ rights; respondents appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held the trial court’s findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and supported termination (father’s appeal addressed in detail; mother’s counsel filed a no‑merit brief and the Court independently reviewed and affirmed).

Issues

Issue	Petitioner (DSS) Argument	Respondent(s) Argument	Held
Whether grounds to terminate father under §7B‑1111(a)(1) (neglect / likelihood of future neglect) were proven	Evidence of past neglect, repeated relapses, positive drug/alcohol tests, failure to complete recommended treatment, ongoing domestic discord and cohabitation with mother support a high likelihood of future neglect	Father argued insufficient evidence of likely future neglect at time of termination; noted prior improvement and argued some findings (e.g., alcohol “high”) were unsupported	Affirmed. Court held findings supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence and supported conclusion that future neglect was likely (one ground suffices)
Whether key findings of fact were supported by the record (alcohol levels, hair testing, cohabitation)	Trial court relied on expert testimony about EtG/EtS levels, hair tests, visits and DSS observations to make inferences	Father contested specific findings (term “high” for alcohol, probative value of underarm hair, whether mother still lived with him)	Affirmed. Expert testimony supported "high" alcohol finding; underarm hair results and other evidence supported inferences; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Whether it was improper to base father’s termination on mother’s continued substance use / conduct	DSS argued father’s continued relationship and cohabitation with mother and failure to separate or otherwise mitigate risk were relevant to fitness and likelihood of future neglect	Father argued court over‑relied on mother’s conduct and his alleged promise to limit contact; he contended his parenting skills showed improvement	Affirmed. Court permissibly considered father’s choice to remain with mother and the domestic discord alongside his own relapse and treatment failures; trial court need not credit speculative promises
Whether mother’s appeal raised meritorious issues after counsel filed a Rule 3.1(e) no‑merit brief	DSS urged affirmance	Mother’s counsel identified potential issues but concluded they lacked merit; mother filed no pro se argument	Affirmed. Court independently reviewed issues in the no‑merit brief and found they lacked merit

Key Cases Cited

In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394 (1982) (only one statutory ground for termination need be proved to support order)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (standard of review: findings tested for clear, cogent, convincing evidence; conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (1984) (in assessing likelihood of future neglect court must consider evidence before and after prior adjudication and focus on best interests and parent fitness)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (2016) (when child has been separated long time, petitioner must show past neglect and likelihood of future neglect)
In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 149 (2017) (failure to comply with substance‑abuse case plan and related findings can support termination for neglect)
State v. Sparks, 362 N.C. 181 (2008) (findings that are conclusions of law will be treated as conclusions on appeal)