375 N.C. 780
N.C.2020Background
- YFS filed juvenile petitions: James and Jiles placed in nonsecure custody (Mar 2018) and adjudicated neglected (Jun 2018); Jacyn born Sep 2018, adjudicated neglected (Mar 2019) and placed with her brothers.
- YFS later moved to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights to all three children, alleging neglect, willful failure to pay cost of care, abandonment, and prior involuntary termination with inability/willingness to establish a safe home (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1),(3),(7),(9)).
- The motions were heard Oct 30, 2019; respondent-mother was not present at the termination hearing. The trial court found grounds under (a)(1), (a)(7), and (a)(9), but insufficient evidence for (a)(3).
- The trial court also concluded termination was in the children’s best interests and entered a written order terminating the mother’s parental rights on Nov 26, 2019.
- Respondent’s appellate counsel filed a Rule 3.1(e) no-merit brief conceding that (a)(9) was supported and that the best-interest disposition was not an abuse of discretion; respondent did not file pro se arguments. The guardian ad litem agreed no meritorious issues existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7B-1111(a)(9) ground exists (prior involuntary termination + inability/willingness to establish safe home) | YFS: Mother has prior involuntary termination and current history (domestic violence, mental health, incarceration, unstable housing) shows inability/willingness to establish safe home | Mother: contested sufficiency of evidence (generally argued lack of rehabilitation/procedural defenses through counsel) | Court: Ground under (a)(9) established; counsel conceded and Court affirmed termination on that basis |
| Whether neglect ground under §7B-1111(a)(1) was proved | YFS: Continued unsafe conditions and failure to remediate prior neglect support termination | Mother: challenged sufficiency of evidence | Court: Trial court found (a)(1) established; affirmed as supported by record |
| Whether abandonment under §7B-1111(a)(7) was proved | YFS: Mother’s conduct and absence supported abandonment finding | Mother: disputed abandonment / contested evidence | Court: Trial court found (a)(7) established; affirmed |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests (disposition) | YFS: Termination necessary given risk factors and prior history | Mother: argued discretion should favor preserving parental rights / challenged reasonableness | Court: Trial court’s best-interest determination not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (affirming termination under §7B-1111(a)(9) based on incarceration, unstable housing, and failure to complete case plan)
- In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190, 835 S.E.2d 417 (2019) (standard for reversing best-interest disposition; requires manifestly unsupported or arbitrary decision)
- In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 831 S.E.2d 341 (2019) (independent appellate review required for no-merit briefs under Rule 3.1(e))
- In re C.J.C., 839 S.E.2d 742 (2020) (discussing statutory factors a trial court must consider in best-interest analysis)
- Hale v. Afro-Am. Arts Int’l, Inc., 335 N.C. 231, 436 S.E.2d 588 (1993) (failure to serve notice of appeal may be waived if not raised by other parties)