In re K.H., 375 N.C. 610

Background

In April 2017 Cabarrus County DSS took into nonsecure custody a 16‑year‑old mother (respondent) and her 9‑month‑old daughter, Kaitlyn; DSS later adjudicated Kaitlyn neglected/dependent.
From 9 June 2017 to 19 December 2017 the minor mother and Kaitlyn lived together in the same foster home; thereafter Kaitlyn was placed apart from respondent.
On 8 August 2018 DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent’s parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(1)–(3), (6), and (7); the trial court terminated rights on 28 March 2019 under subsections (a)(2), (3), and (6).
On appeal the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed whether the statutory grounds were supported by proper findings and by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
The Court held that (a)(2) termination fails because the statutory 12‑month separation requires the child actually live apart from the parent for >12 months prior to filing; findings for (a)(3) and (a)(6) were also insufficient. The termination order was reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time the child and minor parent lived together in the same foster home counts toward the §7B‑1111(a)(2) 12‑month "left in foster care or placement outside the home" period	DSS: Count begins at court custody (5 Apr 2017) and ran continuously until filing on 8 Aug 2018 so >12 months elapsed	Mother: Period when they lived together is not a separation; cannot be treated as child "left in foster care or placement outside the home"	Court: (a)(2) requires the juvenile to have actually lived apart from the parent for >12 months before filing; months living together do not count; (a)(2) ground cannot be sustained here.
Whether trial court made sufficient findings to support §7B‑1111(a)(3) (willful failure to pay a reasonable portion for six months immediately before filing)	DSS: Mother worked in 2018 and paid nothing toward care; supports (a)(3)	Mother: Findings do not specify the continuous six‑month period immediately preceding the filing (8 Feb–8 Aug 2018)	Court: Findings fail to address the specific six‑month window required by statute; (a)(3) not supported and reversed.
Whether trial court made sufficient findings to support §7B‑1111(a)(6) (incapability and reasonable probability it will continue, including lack of appropriate alternative child‑care arrangement)	DSS: Evidence of respondent’s behavioral problems and instability supports incapability	Mother: Record indicates potential alternative placements (foster mother/husband) and trial court did not find lack of alternative arrangement	Court: Trial court made no finding about an appropriate alternative child‑care arrangement; (a)(6) findings insufficient and reversed.
Appropriate remedy (reverse vs remand)	DSS: (implicit) sustain termination if grounds proven	Concurring/dissent: record may permit remand for specific findings rather than outright reversal	Court: Majority reversed for all three grounds for lack of required findings/evidence; concurring/dissenters would have remanded (or affirmed on some grounds).

Key Cases Cited

In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88 (2020) (clarifies burden, standard of review, and two‑step analysis for §7B‑1111(a)(2))
In re J.G.B., 177 N.C. App. 375 (2006) (holds the 12‑month period begins at court‑ordered placement and ends at filing; termination on (a)(2) cannot stand if 12 months not elapsed by filing)
In re J.S., 374 N.C. 811 (2020) (distinguishes time used to measure separation from the time period used to evaluate reasonable progress)
In re A.C.F., 176 N.C. App. 520 (2006) (explains legislative purpose of the 12‑month requirement as notice to parents to correct removal conditions)
In re J.M., 373 N.C. 352 (2020) (discusses (a)(3) considerations where parent had employment or opportunities to contribute toward foster care)
In re N.B., 200 N.C. App. 773 (2009) (remand for additional findings where trial court omitted necessary §7B‑1111(a)(6) findings)