375 N.C. 118
N.C.2020Background:
- Mother (petitioner) filed a private petition to terminate Father’s (respondent’s) parental rights to three children (born 2012 and 2017) on grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment.
- Parents separated after long history of respondent’s drug abuse, violence (including shooting petitioner in the children’s presence), incarceration, rehab, and chronic absence or failure to provide for the children.
- Court granted mother an absolute divorce and custody in January 2019 and ordered respondent not to contact mother or children without court permission.
- At dispositional hearing the trial court found the children thriving in mother’s/maternal grandparents’ home, no bond between respondent and the children (twins never had a relationship), Kevin improving in therapy after trauma, and respondent had not contacted the children since December 2017 and remained incapable of caring for them.
- Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights on May 13, 2019; respondent appealed only the dispositional (best-interest) determination, arguing misweighing of factors.
- Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court considered the statutory factors and did not abuse its discretion in finding termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) | Mother: children are young, thriving with her and grandparents, no bond with father, Kevin’s trauma has been remedied by therapy, mother can meet children’s needs — termination serves children’s interests. | Father: trial court misweighed factors; being settled in a new family alone cannot justify termination; cited Bost. | Affirmed. Court found trial considered statutory factors (age, adoption likelihood, bond, stability, any relevant considerations) and did not abuse its discretion. |
| Whether a child’s being well-settled in a new home alone can support termination (Bost v. Van Nortwick) | Mother: here the settledness finding was accompanied by additional unchallenged findings (no bond, violence, abandonment, rehab failures, lack of contact, GAL’s recommendation). | Father: relied on Bost to argue settledness alone is insufficient and court over-relied on it. | Court distinguished Bost: termination was supported by a combination of factors beyond mere settledness. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered the statutory factors (e.g., likelihood of adoption, bond) | Mother: trial court considered and made findings on relevant § 7B-1110(a) factors; adoption was not an issue but was considered among others. | Father: argued improper weighing/insufficient consideration of factors. | Court: likelihood of adoption is only one factor; trial court’s findings show it considered the statutory factors and its best-interest conclusion was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88 (N.C. 2020) (explains two-step adjudicatory/dispositional process and statutory framework for best-interest analysis)
- In re C.J.C., 374 N.C. 42 (N.C. 2020) (likelihood of adoption is only one § 7B-1110(a) factor; court affirmed where lack of bond and need for consistency supported termination)
- In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190 (N.C. 2019) (standard of review: dispositional best-interest reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388 (N.C. 2019) (unchallenged findings are binding on appeal)
- In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101 (N.C. 2015) (defines abuse of discretion as ruling manifestly unsupported by reason)
- Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93 (N.C. 1991) (unchallenged findings bind appellate review)
- Bost v. Van Nortwick, 117 N.C. App. 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that being well-settled alone does not necessarily support termination)