In re: N.N.B.
843 S.E.2d 474
N.C. Ct. App.2020Background
- DHHS filed a petition on May 30, 2017 alleging Neal (pseudonym), age 11, was neglected and dependent due to severe mental-health problems manifesting in dangerous behaviors requiring high-level psychiatric care.
- Respondent (father) has been incarcerated since 2014 serving a long sentence and had not seen Neal since 2012; Neal’s mother relinquished parental rights in 2018.
- Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (incapacity to provide proper care and lack of appropriate alternative child care arrangement).
- Respondent proposed two relatives (mother and sister) as placements; mother was in poor health and in a retirement community that did not allow children.
- Sister lived in Georgia (requiring an ICPC home study) and had been Neal’s prior caregiver, but DHHS suspended ICPC placement because Neal was in a Level IV PRTF and then recommended transition to a Level III group home; DHHS and the PRTF concluded Neal’s psychiatric needs made relative placement inappropriate.
- The trial court’s findings on those factual points were unchallenged; the Court of Appeals affirmed termination, holding the evidence supported that respondent lacked an appropriate alternative placement given Neal’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neal is a dependent juvenile under § 7B‑1111(a)(6) because respondent is incapable of providing proper care and lacks an appropriate alternative placement | Respondent is incarcerated and cannot provide care; relatives are unsuitable given Neal’s need for Level III/IV psychiatric care | Respondent offered mother and sister as appropriate, willing placements; ICPC and DHHS decisions prevented placement and he had no input due to incarceration | Held: Court affirmed—respondent incapable and lacked appropriate alternative placement; relatives were not appropriate given Neal’s severe psychiatric needs, so dependency and termination under (a)(6) are supported |
| Whether offering a relative (sister) who requires ICPC but is willing precludes termination | DHHS: willingness alone insufficient where child’s clinical needs make relative placement inappropriate; ICPC was suspended pending discharge planning | Respondent: sister’s willingness and prior caregiving relationship should suffice; ICPC process and DHHS decisions unfairly prevented placement | Held: Court rejected respondent’s claim—clinical evaluations and PRTF recommendation showed sister not an appropriate placement, so ICPC availability did not defeat termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.R.B., 182 N.C. App. 733 (2007) (describes two-step termination process and applicable standards of review)
- In re C.B., 245 N.C. App. 197 (2016) (contrast on parental refusal/unwillingness to accept child’s mental-health needs)
- In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423 (2005) (definition of dependent juvenile requires both incapacity to care and lack of appropriate alternative placement)
- In re B.S.D.S., 163 N.C. App. 540 (2004) (holding that only one valid statutory ground is needed to affirm termination)