In re: P.T.W.Â
250 N.C. App. 589
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Infant P.T.W., born April 2013 with serious medical needs, was taken into Wake County Human Services (WCHS) custody shortly after birth; mother (Respondent-Mother) already lacked custody of five other children.
- WCHS case plan (2013) required stable housing/income, mental-health and substance-assessments, parenting and anger-management work, supervised then unsupervised visitation; reunification efforts continued with periodic reviews.
- Visits were expanded in late 2014/early 2015 but reinstated as supervised and then suspended in May 2015 after concerns about mother’s visit behavior and new allegations involving sexual conduct reported to Vance County DSS (VCDSS), which later substantiated abuse.
- WCHS moved to cease reunification in July 2015; the trial court entered a CRO (cease-reunification order) on August 31, 2015, finding multiple deficiencies in the mother’s progress (housing, parenting, anger control, contact with father despite DVPO, sporadic therapy/contact with agency, and the Vance substantiation among others).
- WCHS filed a termination petition; after a March 2016 hearing the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on April 18, 2016. Mother appealed the CRO and TPR order; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | County/WCHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of CRO findings under N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(b)(1) (cease reunification) | Key findings (esp. Vance sexual-abuse substantiation; lack of sustained parenting; housing instability; failure to engage in therapy; anger issues) were not supported by competent evidence and thus CRO was legally insufficient | WCHS introduced court summary and social-worker testimony supporting the factual findings (Vance substantiation, parenting/visitation problems, eviction and damage, anger/contacts with father, sporadic therapy) | Court: Majority of contested findings were supported by competent evidence; one finding (failure to reengage in therapy after moving to Pitt County) lacked support but remaining findings sufficed to support CRO; CRO affirmed |
| Failure to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the child in termination proceedings | Trial court abused discretion by not appointing a GAL to represent child’s best interests at termination hearing; mother argued manifest injustice | WCHS/Wake County: appointment was discretionary (no statutory mandate here) and mother did not preserve the issue by objecting below; trial court had adequate evidence/testimony to adjudicate best interests without a GAL | Court: Issue not preserved (no objection). Even on merits, no abuse of discretion shown; no Rule 2 relief—affirmed |
| Whether the termination order cured any CRO deficiencies (In re L.M.T. principle) | CRO defects required reversal of both CRO and TPR because CRO findings were insufficient and TPR did not cure them | WCHS: CRO findings (taken with TPR findings) were adequate; many CRO findings were supported and not deficient | Court: Where CRO findings were supported, no need to rely on TPR to cure defects; TPR did not need to correct findings that were already supported; affirmed |
| Role/weight of Vance County DSS substantiation of sexual-abuse allegations | Mother emphasized lack of independent proof of a sexual relationship and argued that allegation was the CRO’s gravamen and unsupported | WCHS produced testimony explaining the Vance investigative process; trial court relied on Vance substantiation as one among numerous factors | Court: Vance substantiation and WCHS report/testimony constituted competent evidence; sexual-allegation was one factor among many, not the sole basis for CRO; finding that Vance ‘‘substantiated’’ abuse was supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165 (2014) (findings in termination order may cure deficiencies in an earlier cease-reunification order)
- In re I.R.C., 214 N.C. App. 358 (2011) (standard of review and need for specific findings to cease reunification)
- In re M.J.G., 168 N.C. App. 638 (2005) (competent evidence requirement; failure to follow plan and sporadic contact supports adverse findings)
- In re M.H.B., 192 N.C. App. 258 (2008) (discretionary GAL appointment reviewable for abuse of discretion; total failure to exercise discretion may require reversal)
- In re Fuller, 144 N.C. App. 620 (2001) (failure to appoint GAL can be prejudicial; preservation of error principles)
- In re Barnes, 97 N.C. App. 325 (1990) (same)
- In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101 (2015) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re O.C., 171 N.C. App. 457 (2005) (no prejudice from lack of GAL where respondent had lengthy opportunity to comply with case plan)