In re M.C., 374 N.C. 882

Background

Mother (respondent) and father (Walter) had a history of domestic violence and multiple domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs); DSS intervened after reports the children were exposed to domestic violence.
Two older children (Miranda, Megan) were removed and adjudicated neglected in 2017; a third child (Margot) was removed in 2018 after the mother repeatedly had contact with Walter in violation of no-contact orders.
DSS required the mother to complete mental-health and domestic-violence services and forbade contact with Walter; despite some initial engagement, the mother repeatedly resumed the relationship and allowed Walter access to her home and car.
DSS changed the children’s permanency plan to adoption in August 2018 after continued contact between the parents despite warnings; Walter ceased services and was later arrested on charges and DVPO violations.
DSS moved to terminate both parents’ rights; after a February 2019 hearing the trial court found grounds to terminate and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests; mother appealed only the adjudication as to neglect.

Issues

Issue	DSS (Plaintiff) Argument	Respondent (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported termination for neglect under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)	Mother repeatedly exposed children to injurious environment by maintaining relationship with violent father, violating DVPOs and court orders, and lying to providers; past neglect + likelihood of future neglect support termination.	Mother argued contrary testimony and changed circumstances (father jailed; she said she would not return to him) undercut likelihood of future neglect; challenged certain factual findings.	Affirmed. Trial court findings (many unchallenged) supported conclusion of likely repetition of neglect; court not required to credit mother’s testimony.
Whether trial court erred by relying on any erroneous or unsupported factual findings	Any isolated erroneous finding (e.g., a birthday dinner) was harmless because other unchallenged findings supported termination.	Mother contended some findings lacked evidentiary support and that one finding was actually a legal conclusion.	Held harmless/error in labeling immaterial; appellate court reclassified labels where appropriate and upheld findings.
Whether trial court failed to account for changed circumstances at hearing	DSS argued the mother’s claimed change (father jailed, testimony) was insufficient given history of repeated reunifications and risk assessment based on historical facts.	Mother relied on In re A.B. to argue court should have credited evidence of current stability and services.	Court distinguished A.B.; here evidence of change was minimal and contradicted by other testimony; court properly discounted it.
Whether trial court’s conclusions were defective for not using phrase "probability of future neglect"	DSS pointed to findings expressly stating likelihood of repetition and argued labels are not controlling.	Mother argued omission of statutory phrase rendered order defective.	Court held labels immaterial; findings expressly addressed likelihood and support the legal conclusion of future neglect.

Key Cases Cited

In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3, 832 S.E.2d 698 (2019) (standard for adjudicatory burden in TPR proceedings)
In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 831 S.E.2d 49 (2019) (appellate review of TPR adjudication; single-ground sufficiency)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) (appellate deference to trial court findings where evidence supports them)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 408 S.E.2d 729 (1991) (unchallenged findings binding on appeal)
In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (review limited to challenged findings necessary to support TPR)
In re Z.V.A., 373 N.C. 207, 835 S.E.2d 425 (2019) (trial court may discredit testimony where contradicted by other evidence in TPR context)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 319 S.E.2d 227 (1984) (need to show present neglect or past neglect plus likelihood of future neglect)
In re A.B., 253 N.C. App. 29, 799 S.E.2d 445 (2017) (trial court must account for evidence of changed circumstances at TPR hearing)