In re L.M.T.
367 N.C. 165
N.C.2013Background
- Two trial-court orders: (1) a permanency-planning order relieving DSS of reunification efforts ("cease reunification order") and (2) an order terminating Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed both orders, concluding the permanency-planning order did not explicitly link findings to N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(b)(1)’s language and reviewed the reunification order in isolation.
- Trial court made extensive factual findings of ongoing prescription-drug abuse by Mother (including use in children's presence), domestic violence, deception of the court, unstable housing, lack of employment, failure to care for children, and that children needed permanence and adoption.
- Trial court’s termination order contained findings on likely repeated neglect, minimal parent-child bond, high likelihood of adoption, and that return would cause irreparable harm.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 7B-507(b)(1) requires verbatim statutory language in permanency orders and whether a court of appeals may consider the termination order together with the permanency order on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7B-507(b)(1) requires verbatim statutory language in permanency findings | Court of Appeals: permanency order lacked an explicit link to statutory factors and thus was deficient | State/Respondent (trial court): findings substantively addressed futility and inconsistency with child’s health/safety without quoting statute | The Supreme Court: statutory language need not be quoted verbatim; findings must address the substance of § 7B-507(b)(1) and be supported by evidence |
| Whether a deficient permanency order can be cured on appeal by considering the termination order together | Mother: review should treat orders separately; termination order should not salvage a defective permanency order | State: § 7B-1001(a)(5) requires appellate review of the reunification order "together with" the termination appeal | Supreme Court: appellate courts must review the reunification order together with the termination appeal; incomplete permanency findings may be cured by findings in the termination order when considered together |
| Whether termination of parental rights was an abuse of discretion under § 7B-1110 (best-interests factors) | Mother: trial court’s conclusion that termination served children’s best interests was unsupported | State/trial court: extensive findings show likely repeated neglect, minimal bond, high likelihood of adoption, and benefit to child’s permanence | Supreme Court: termination order considered § 7B-1110 factors and was not manifestly unsupported by reason; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.T.W., 359 N.C. 539, 614 S.E.2d 489 (N.C. 2005) (discussing interplay of parental rights and Juvenile Code; prior rule on termination mootness)
- In re M.I.W., 365 N.C. 374, 722 S.E.2d 469 (N.C. 2012) (favoring minimization of procedural delay in juvenile cases)
- In re S.N., 194 N.C. App. 142, 669 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (describing best-interests inquiry and abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re P.O., 207 N.C. App. 35, 698 S.E.2d 525 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for appellate review of juvenile-court findings)
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (N.C. 1984) (recognizing discretion in termination decisions)
- Boswell v. Boswell, 241 N.C. 515, 85 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. 1955) (courts avoid advisory opinions; decisions tied to case facts)
- Poore v. Poore, 201 N.C. 791, 161 S.E. 532 (N.C. 1931) (court should not issue advisory opinions)