In re N.G., 374 N.C. 891

Background

Natasha (born ~2009) was removed from parental care in Feb 2017; DSS alleged mother was chronically homeless with untreated mental-health issues and father had prior involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR).
Natasha was initially placed with father but removed after he gave a false name and DOB; she then remained in foster care (pre‑adoptive home) with her sister.
Psychological evaluations: a 2014 evaluation diagnosed father with Antisocial Personality Disorder; mother’s evaluation showed personality traits (paranoid/narcissistic) and she failed to secure stable housing or meaningfully engage in therapy.
DSS modified the permanent plan to adoption, filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights in Dec 2018, and the trial court entered TPR orders on 15 May 2019.
On appeal father challenged sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds (notably N.C.G.S. §7B‑1111(a)(9)); mother challenged only the dispositional/best‑interest determination.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed: it upheld termination of father under (a)(9) and held the trial court did not abuse discretion in finding termination of mother was in Natasha’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether father's rights may be terminated under N.C.G.S. §7B‑1111(a)(9) (prior involuntary TPR + lacks ability/willingness to establish a safe home)	Father’s prior involuntary TPR + psychological evidence and recent conduct show he lacks ability/willingness to establish a safe home	2014 psychological diagnosis was stale; insufficient evidence that father lacked ability/willingness at time of hearing	Affirmed: (a)(9) satisfied — 2014 evaluation, father’s deception, failure to engage in treatment, and other evidence supported lack of ability/willingness
Whether other statutory grounds for father (neglect, failure to make progress, failure to legitimize) were proven	DSS alleged multiple additional grounds	Father challenged sufficiency of various findings	Court declined to address further because (a)(9) alone sufficed to support TPR; termination affirmed
Whether termination of mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests (dispositional issue under §7B‑1110(a))	Termination would permit adoption by stable foster parents who meet Natasha’s needs; child thriving and adoption likely	Mother urged preservation of family integrity and argued harm to child; also argued father could provide home	No abuse of discretion: trial court considered statutory factors (age, adoptability, bond, permanency) and reasonably concluded termination served Natasha’s best interests
Standard of review on appeal (factual findings; sufficiency of evidence)	Trial court’s findings supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence; unchallenged findings are binding	Respondents argued many findings unsupported or insufficient	Court applied standard (clear, cogent, convincing for adjudicatory; abuse of discretion for dispositional) and found challenged findings supported; unchallenged findings binding

Key Cases Cited

In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) (standards for adjudicatory/dispositional stages and appellate review of findings)
In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019) (definition of "safe home" and precedents on §7B‑1111(a)(9))
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 788 S.E.2d 162 (2016) (dispositional best‑interest review is for abuse of discretion)
In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 485 S.E.2d 612 (1997) (dispositional stage considerations)
In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 293 S.E.2d 127 (1982) (appellate scope: findings must support conclusions)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 372 S.E.2d 523 (1988) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 831 S.E.2d 62 (2019) (unchallenged dispositional findings are binding on appeal)