In re: R.A.F. & R.G.F., 284 N.C. App. 637

Two children (born 2012, 2013) have lived with petitioners (step-maternal aunt/uncle and licensed foster parents) continuously since September 2014; they were adjudicated neglected in 2015.
In 2017 custody was transferred to petitioners and reunification requirements were imposed on Mother; she had intermittent drug positives and lived with relatives.
Petitioners filed termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) petitions in April 2021; Mother was personally served and assigned provisional counsel (Ms. Walker), who filed extensions but Mother did not file answers.
Notice of the July 15, 2021 hearing was sent to counsel but was not mailed directly to Mother at her address of record; Mother did not appear.
At the pretrial the court asked counsel only whether she had contact with Mother, then released counsel sua sponte; the court held a TPR hearing, found willful neglect/abandonment, and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
On appeal the Court of Appeals treated Mother’s imperfectly addressed notice of appeal as a certiorari petition, vacated the TPR orders, and remanded because the trial court failed to adequately inquire into counsel’s efforts to notify Mother and whether Mother had notice of the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by releasing provisional counsel without adequate inquiry under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1108.1 and whether Mother had notice of the hearing	Mother: court failed to inquire into counsel’s efforts to contact her or whether she received notice; deprivation of right to counsel and adequate notice	Petitioners/Trial court: counsel made efforts, Mother had been served earlier, counsel appeared and relief was within the court’s discretion	Court vacated and remanded: trial court erred by not adequately inquiring into counsel’s efforts and whether Mother had notice; right-to-counsel violation requires no separate showing of prejudice
Whether the trial court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children	Mother: GAL should have been appointed under § 7B-1108(b)	Petitioners/Trial court: GAL unnecessary because parents did not contest the petitions	Not decided on the merits—majority deemed the counsel/notice error dispositive and remanded without ruling on GAL
Whether Mother’s misaddressed notice of appeal deprived this Court of jurisdiction	Mother: the Court of Appeals can reasonably infer she intended to appeal here despite addressing the Supreme Court	Petitioners/Dissent: defective notice requires dismissal under Rule 3(d) and controlling precedent	Court exercised discretion (citing precedent) to treat filings as a petition for certiorari and reached the merits

In re K.M.W., 376 N.C. 195 (discusses fundamental fairness and the statutory right to counsel/adequate notice in TPR proceedings)
In re D.E.G., 228 N.C. App. 381 (requires trial court inquiry into counsel’s efforts to contact absent parent before relieving counsel in TPR)
In re S.N.W., 204 N.C. App. 556 (similar holding on protecting absent parent’s rights when counsel seeks withdrawal)
In re K.N., 181 N.C. App. 736 (addresses parents’ rights to counsel and adequate notice in termination proceedings)
In re M.G., 239 N.C. App. 77 (addresses when counsel may withdraw and the need for notice/permission of the court)
Stephenson v. Bartlett, 177 N.C. App. 239 (liberal construction of Rule 3(d) where intent to appeal to this Court is inferable)
Phelps Staffing, LLC v. S.C. Phelps, Inc., 217 N.C. App. 403 (Rule 3(d) compliance is ordinarily jurisdictional and failure may require dismissal)