In re L.M.M., 375 N.C. 346

Background

Larry born November 2016; lived with respondent-mother (Cathy) for about one year. In November 2017 Cathy asked petitioner (Karen), a relative, to care for Larry because Cathy was homeless and without income.
Karen agreed to take Larry only if Cathy signed documents relinquishing parental rights; Cathy ultimately signed a document and Karen took physical custody in November 2017.
After a few weeks Cathy exchanged some Facebook messages and requests for money, then last contacted Karen on November 21, 2017; Karen blocked Cathy on Facebook and had no further contact.
Cathy was incarcerated during 2018 and remained in custody during the determinative six-month period (18 July 2018–18 January 2019). Cathy did not provide financial support, gifts, or other demonstrable contact during that six-month period.
Karen filed a petition to terminate Cathy’s parental rights on 18 January 2019. The trial court found Cathy willfully abandoned Larry under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) and terminated her parental rights; the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Karen)	Defendant's Argument (Cathy)	Held
Whether Cathy willfully abandoned Larry under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (six consecutive months immediately before filing)	Karen: Cathy had no contact or displays of affection and provided no support during the six-month window, evidencing a deliberate relinquishment of parental duties.	Cathy: Lack of contact was not willful; incarceration and petitioner’s blocking limited her ability to maintain contact; petitioner failed to prove intent to abandon.	Court: Affirmed — findings show Cathy took no action to express parental concern during the six-month period, supporting willful abandonment.
Whether incarceration alone prevents a finding of willful abandonment	Karen: Incarceration does not excuse failure to use available means of contact; evidence showed Cathy had means (phone number, relatives) and did nothing.	Cathy: Incarceration substantially limited contact opportunities; petitioner had burden to prove willfulness despite incarceration.	Court: Incarceration is not a shield; where a parent had practical means but did nothing, abandonment may be found.
Whether absence of financial support alone establishes abandonment	Karen: No financial support during the period is probative of abandonment.	Cathy: No evidence she had the ability to provide financial support while incarcerated; lack of support alone cannot prove willfulness.	Court: Lack of support was not the sole basis; court relied on complete absence of contact and affection rather than financial contribution alone.
Whether Cathy’s November 2017 intent (temporary placement) precludes abandonment finding	Karen: Later conduct (no contact during the six months) demonstrates abandonment regardless of initial intent.	Cathy: Initial intent was temporary; petitioner pressured her to sign; that shows lack of intent to abandon.	Court: Prior intent in 2017 is relevant but does not preclude finding abandonment if the parent did nothing during the determinative six months.

Key Cases Cited

In re A.G.D., 374 N.C. 317 (N.C. 2020) (abandonment requires purposeful, willful relinquishment of parental duties and may be found despite incarceration if parent does nothing to show parental concern)
In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16 (N.C. 2019) (courts may consider conduct outside the six-month window for credibility and intent but focus remains on the six-month period)
In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50 (N.C. 2020) (prior efforts to maintain relationship do not bar a later finding of abandonment if parent fails to act in the determinative period)
In re A.L.S., 374 N.C. 515 (N.C. 2020) (failure to attempt any form of contact gives rise to an inference of willful abdication of parental role)
Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486 (N.C. 1962) (definition of abandonment requires intent to forego parental duties)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (N.C. 1984) (burden rests on petitioner to prove grounds for termination by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244 (N.C. 1997) (neglect findings must be based on current circumstances at time of termination)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination of parental rights requires heightened proof — clear and convincing evidence)
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (courts must heed gravity of terminating parental rights and protect procedural safeguards)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (N.C. 1984) (standard of appellate review: findings must be supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)