374 N.C. 811
N.C.2020Background
- In May 2016 Wilkes DSS obtained nonsecure custody of four children after removing them from respondent-mother’s trailer for filthy, hazardous conditions and safety-plan violations.
- Mother signed a family services case plan (May 2016) including: mental-health assessment and treatment, parenting classes, suitable housing and employment, participation in an in‑home aide program, drug screens, visitation, and child support.
- Mother completed some tasks (parenting classes, visitations, drug screens, contact with DSS) but repeatedly failed to obtain/maintain suitable housing, refused/terminated the in‑home aide, and did not correct home conditions.
- A psychologist’s report diagnosed Mild Intellectual Disability and an Unspecified Personality Disorder and concluded mother lacked capacity to manage a home while rearing four children.
- Permanency plan was changed to adoption (Sept. 2018). DSS filed termination petitions (Nov. 2018); after an April 2019 hearing, the trial court terminated mother’s parental rights (July 2019). The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7B‑1111(a)(2) grounds exist: willful failure to make reasonable progress in correcting removal conditions | Mother had been in foster/placement >12 months and, despite services and nearly three years, willfully failed to make reasonable progress (refused aide; housing remained unsafe) | Mother lacked ability to make progress due to cognitive limitations; thus failure was not willful | Affirmed: findings supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence; willfulness may be found despite cognitive deficits where parent could have complied with plan and had extended time |
| Whether permanency planning order (Sept. 2018) eliminating reunification was reviewable here | DSS relied on permanency change and proceeded to seek termination | Mother sought certiorari review of the permanency order | Procedural: certiorari granted but mother abandoned arguments on that order in her brief, so no error found |
| Whether disposition (§7B‑1110) was erroneous: best‑interest analysis omitted or flawed (adoptability, bond, permanent plan) | Trial court considered statutory factors; adoption prospects existed for at least one child and were reasonable for others; no conflicting evidence required additional written findings | Mother argued court failed to address factors and that sons had behavioral problems making adoption unlikely; urged that continued placement with visitation was working | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; statutory factors considered; adoption likely for one child and plausible for others; bonds were evaluated and trial court credited DSS testimony |
| Whether findings of willfulness conflict with finding of incapacity under §7B‑1111(a)(6) | These concepts are compatible: (a)(2) asks about reasonable progress under the circumstances, not absolute capacity to parent | Mother argued it is irreconcilable to find both incapacity and willful failure to make progress | Affirmed: no inconsistency—reasonable‑progress inquiry is distinct and does not require full parental capability or reunification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 831 S.E.2d 305 (N.C. 2019) (case‑plan compliance relevant and requires nexus to removal conditions)
- In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190, 835 S.E.2d 417 (N.C. 2019) (dispositional findings required only when evidence conflicts)
- In re N.P., 839 S.E.2d 801 (N.C. 2020) (standards for appellate review of adjudication)
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (N.C. 2019) (unchallenged findings binding on appeal; review limited to necessary findings)
- In re L.C.R., 226 N.C. App. 249, 739 S.E.2d 596 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (reasonable‑progress measured up to termination hearing; removal must be pursuant to order >12 months)
- In re J.A.O., 166 N.C. App. 222, 601 S.E.2d 226 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (contrasting fact pattern where adoption highly unlikely and termination abused discretion)
- In re I.G.C., 373 N.C. 201, 835 S.E.2d 432 (N.C. 2019) (trial court must consider parent’s efforts and weigh evidence before adjudication)