In re R.D., 376 N.C. 244

Background

BCS (a private adoption agency) filed to terminate the biological father's parental rights after the mother relinquished the infant to BCS one day after birth and the child was placed with prospective adoptive parents.
Mother listed an incorrect address for father; father did not learn of the birth until he was served with the termination petition months later and then established paternity.
The trial court found a ground for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(5) (failure to establish paternity) and proceeded to disposition.
The GAL (an attorney) prepared a detailed report recommending against termination; the court admitted the written report into evidence but, citing Rule 3.7, required the GAL to choose between testifying (and withdrawing as advocate) or remaining counsel and not testifying; the GAL chose not to testify.
The trial court concluded termination was not in the child’s best interests and denied BCS’s petition. On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed (1) admission of the GAL report and the lack of cross-examination, and (2) whether dispositional findings were supported by evidence, including an allegedly unsupported finding about adoption “harm.”

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (BCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the GAL’s written report at disposition without allowing cross-examination of the GAL	BCS: admission without cross-examination deprived BCS of a fair opportunity to challenge the GAL’s factual bases and recommendation	Father: dispositional stage is non-adversarial; court has broad discretion to admit hearsay and other evidence relevant to best interests	Held: No abuse of discretion. Dispositional hearings permit relevant, reliable, necessary evidence (including hearsay); no absolute right to cross-examine at disposition; court acted reasonably given Rule 3.7 concerns and its offer to the GAL to testify only if she withdrew as advocate.
Whether the court had to make explicit written findings that the GAL report was "relevant, reliable, and necessary" before admitting it	BCS: statute requires explicit findings that the report met § 7B-1110(a) criteria	Father: no statutory requirement for express written findings; court’s discretion suffices	Held: No. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) does not demand express written findings; the court need only exercise its discretion.
Whether the trial court improperly imposed a burden of proof at disposition or failed to consider statutory best-interest factors	BCS: court framed findings as if BCS bore a burden and over-weighted the catchall factor (a)(6), ignoring adoption likelihood, bond, and permanence factors	Father: trial court considered factors; disposition has no formal burden and trial court may weigh factors	Held: Trial court did not improperly impose a burden; it considered the § 7B-1110 factors and may give weight to (a)(6); appellate court will not reweigh evidence.
Whether dispositional findings were unsupported, specifically the finding that adopted children often face "harm" (and whether that required remand)	BCS: the adoption-harm assertion lacked evidentiary support, reflected inappropriate bias, and was prejudicial to BCS’s case	Father: the court could consider preservation of biological ties; any scholarly research does not permit judicial notice of harm absent evidence	Held: The specific finding that adopted children often face harm was unsupported and improper; it could have affected the best‑interests balance. The Court vacated the dispositional order in part and remanded for a new dispositional order (court may decide whether a new hearing is needed).

Key Cases Cited

In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3 (2019) (dispositional best-interest review and permissive use of (a)(6) for other relevant considerations)
In re J.H.K., 365 N.C. 171 (2011) (GAL may fulfill out-of-court investigatory duties by submitting reports; presence/testimony not always required)
In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388 (2019) (standard for reviewing adjudication findings: clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (trial court’s fact findings supported where some evidence exists)
State v. Baymon, 336 N.C. 748 (1994) (definition and nature of hearsay)
In re N.G., 374 N.C. 891 (2020) (use of detailed GAL reports at disposition)
In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50 (2020) (dispositional findings reviewed for competent evidence)
Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Reid Motor Co., 216 N.C. 432 (1939) (adversarial right to cross-examination in civil trials)