374 N.C. 849
N.C.2020Background
- Katie born April 2014; mother had custody; respondent (father) exhibited serious mental‑health issues and domestic‑violence conduct leading to criminal charges and a DVPO.
- CPS investigations in mid‑2014 resulted in Katie being placed in kinship care with maternal grandparents and BCDSS obtaining nonsecure custody; Katie was adjudicated neglected December 2014.
- Trial court ceased reunification efforts toward respondent (father) because he declined services; permanent plan was reunification with mother and mother regained sole custody March 2015.
- Mother filed a petition to terminate father’s parental rights in August 2017, alleging neglect, failure to make reasonable progress (12‑month placement), dependency, and abandonment.
- After an evidentiary hearing (Nov. 2018), the trial court denied the petition (Termination Order, May 6, 2019) with many evidentiary findings but only a single legal conclusion that "petitioner failed her burden to prove...the necessary grounds exist."
- Supreme Court vacated and remanded because the trial court’s order lacked the ultimate findings and conclusions required for meaningful appellate review under N.C.G.S. §§ 7B‑1109(e), 7B‑1110(c), and Rule 52(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by using the plural phrase "necessary grounds" (implying multiple grounds required) | Mother: phrase shows trial court thought multiple statutory grounds were required | Father: phrase is harmless/ordinary usage | Court: pluralization alone doesn’t show an erroneous legal belief; not reversible by itself |
| Whether the trial court’s findings and conclusions were sufficient for appellate review when denying a termination petition | Mother: findings are inadequate—no ultimate facts on alleged statutory grounds; single conclusory legal statement insufficient | Father & GAL: many evidentiary findings suffice; silence on particular grounds can signal nonexistence | Court: findings insufficient—trial court must make specific ultimate facts and conclusions to permit review; order vacated and remanded |
| Whether a trial court’s silence on specific alleged grounds can be treated as a valid non‑adjudication when denying a petition | Mother: court must address each alleged ground so appellate review is possible | Father & GAL: silence can imply nonexistence; requiring explicit rulings is unnecessary burden | Court: when denying termination, statutory text requires appropriate findings/conclusions for each alleged ground; silence undermines review and is not acceptable |
| Whether dependency (§ 7B‑1111(a)(6)) was an available ground here | Mother asserted dependency among her alleged grounds | Father argued dependency not applicable because child was in mother’s custody | Court: dependency ground not supported because Katie was not a dependent juvenile when petition filed (she was with mother); petitioner did not press dependency on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (§ 7B‑1109(e) imports Rule 52(a)(1) duty to make specific findings)
- Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 290 S.E.2d 653 (1982) (trial court must find ultimate facts determinative of questions involved)
- Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 268 S.E.2d 185 (1980) (findings must support conclusions and permit appellate review)
- In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 831 S.E.2d 49 (2019) (adjudication requires proof that grounds exist under § 7B‑1111)
- In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 833 S.E.2d 768 (2019) (clarifies ultimate findings versus evidentiary facts)
- In re S.R.G., 200 N.C. App. 594, 684 S.E.2d 902 (2009) (discusses need to adjudicate alleged grounds at hearing; law‑of‑the‑case issues on remand)
- In re B.C.T., 828 S.E.2d 50 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019) (quantity of findings alone does not replace required ultimate facts; no "magic words" but findings must make basis clear)