In re L.H., 708 S.E.2d 191

Respondent father appeals a termination of parental rights order regarding his son Luke; he concedes incapacity to care for Luke but challenges whether DSS failed to provide an appropriate alternative child care arrangement and whether termination was properly grounded.
The trial court found Luke was a dependent juvenile and terminated parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-llll(a)(6) based in part on lack of a viable alternative placement and on proven incapacity of the parents.
Luke was initially placed with his maternal grandmother under a DSS safety plan; DSS later sought termination and adoption with the grandmother as adoptive parent.
Dr. Muthiah K. Sabanayagam diagnosed the father with several mental/health impairments and opined he was not capable of parenting; psychologists similarly found the mother to be mentally retarded.
The trial court’s dispositional order relied heavily on the maternal grandmother’s bond with Luke and adoption plan; the Rule 60(b)(2) motion, filed during appeal, sought relief based on newly discovered evidence alleging abuse by the grandmother.
On appeal, the court (1) affirmed the termination grounds but (2) reversed and remanded the Rule 60(b)(2) portion for a new dispositional hearing due to lack of proper notice and potential lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there were legally valid grounds under § 7B-1111(a)(6) to terminate parental rights	State argues DSS placed Luke with a relative and the father failed to propose an alternative.	Father contends the placement by DSS should not determine lack of an alternative arrangement; he did not fail to propose alternatives.	Yes; grounds existed because father failed to offer an appropriate alternative placement and was unable to care for Luke.
Whether the trial court properly denied the Rule 60(b)(2) motion	Court below should maintain termination decision; evidence did not warrant reopening.	Father contends new evidence could negate best interests and require a new dispositional hearing.	No; the Rule 60(b)(2) hearing merged with a dispositional hearing and lacked proper notice, requiring remand for a new dispositional hearing.
Whether the dispositional best-interests analysis was properly conducted	Best interests favored adoption by the maternal grandmother.	Best interests could shift if newly discovered evidence showed abuse or different conditions.	Remand for a proper dispositional hearing because best-interests analysis was not properly completed in light of potential new evidence.

In re Blackburn, 142 N.C. App. 607, 543 S.E.2d 906 (2001) (two-stage termination; grounds and best interests framework)
In re Anderson, 151 N.C. App. 94, 564 S.E.2d 599 (2002) (necessity of considering best interests after grounds found)
In re D.J.D., D.M.D., S.J.D., J.M.D., 171 N.C. App. 230, 615 S.E.2d 26 (2005) (parent must suggest viable alternatives for a child to be dependent)
In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423, 610 S.E.2d 403 (2005) (requires considering both parental capacity and availability of alternatives)
In re J.D.L., 199 N.C. App. 182, 681 S.E.2d 485 (2009) (dependency requires either inability to care or failure to suggest an alternative)
In re J.L., 183 N.C. App. 126, 643 S.E.2d 604 (2007) (dependency requires showing lack of ability or failure to propose alternatives)
In re Clark, 151 N.C. App. 286, 565 S.E.2d 245 (2002) (limitations on DSS action vs. parent-proposed alternatives)
In re Nesbitt, 147 N.C. App. 349, 555 S.E.2d 659 (2001) (appellate review of best interests and grounds)
Hall v. Cohen, 177 N.C. App. 456, 628 S.E.2d 469 (2006) (procedure for reviewing Rule 60(b) motions during appeal)