374 N.C. 50
N.C.2020Background
- Mother and father had a relationship (2010–2012); daughter Kathy born Dec. 2011 and has lived with mother since birth.
- Mother obtained a DVPO against father (initially Aug. 2014; renewed through May 2018); father sought custody/visitation in 2014 but abandoned custody claim; 1 June 2015 order awarded mother sole custody and granted father twice-monthly supervised visitation at a mediation center.
- Father had little-to-no contact with Kathy from 2014 through the determinative six-month period (11 Mar 2017–11 Sep 2017): no visits, no communication, no financial support, no cards/gifts, and did not seek to modify custody/visitation.
- Mother filed a petition to terminate father’s parental rights on 11 Sep 2017 under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (willful abandonment); after hearings the trial court adjudicated willful abandonment and, at disposition, found termination in Kathy’s best interest.
- Dispositional findings emphasized Kathy’s strong bond with mother’s husband (who has raised her and seeks to adopt), Kathy’s settled and thriving home, the GAL’s recommendation for termination, and a lack of parent–child bond with father.
- Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed: (1) adjudication that father willfully abandoned Kathy during the six-month period preceding the petition was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the termination was not an abuse of discretion under the best-interest standard.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father willfully abandoned the child under § 7B-1111(a)(7) (six consecutive months immediately before petition) | Father withheld presence, care, affection, and support since 2014, including the six months before filing, showing intent to forego parental duties | Court’s findings outside the six-month window drive the conclusion; father challenges reliance on earlier conduct and some contested factual findings | Affirmed. Trial court’s findings (no contact/visits/support during the determinative period) support willful abandonment conclusion. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion at disposition in finding termination is in child’s best interest under § 7B-1110(a) | Termination needed to accomplish permanent plan; father lacks bond and will not promote child’s welfare; GAL favors termination; adoptive placement available | Father argues parental-presumption cases favor biological parent and that some dispositional findings lack competent evidence | Affirmed. Court made detailed findings on statutory factors; competent evidence supports best-interest determination and no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether certain factual findings (e.g., visitation activity in 2018, references to abandonment of custody/visitation) were erroneous or prejudicial | Mother relied on long-term absence and failure to exercise court-ordered visitation before petition | Father asserted some findings addressed conduct outside determinative six-month window or misstated visitation/custody abandonment | Any errors pertained to events after filing or were harmless; core determinative findings remain supported and unaffected, so affirmation stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 833 S.E.2d 768 (clarifies six‑month determinative period and use of earlier conduct for credibility/inference)
- In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 831 S.E.2d 49 (standard of review and sufficiency for adjudication of grounds to terminate)
- Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 126 S.E.2d 597 (definition of abandonment as forfeiting parental claims by withholding presence, care, support)
- Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142, 579 S.E.2d 264 (adjudication under § 7B-1111(a) shows parent has forfeited constitutionally protected status)
- Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (recognizes constitutionally protected parental interest—subject to forfeiture if parent unfit)
- Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 704 S.E.2d 494 (parent loses protected status if unfit or acts inconsistently with that status)