In re S.D., 374 N.C. 67

Background

Sarah (pseudonym) was removed from her mother’s care after the mother’s substance abuse; Mecklenburg YFS obtained nonsecure custody in Dec. 2016 and adjudicated Sarah neglected and dependent in Feb. 2017. Paternity for Jonathan K. (respondent‑father) was established by DNA in Feb. 2017.
YFS prepared a reunification‑focused case plan for father addressing substance abuse, mental health, parenting, housing, employment, and required a FIRST assessment; visits were conditioned on sobriety and compliance.
Father was incarcerated at various times (including before and after paternity was established) and after release in Sept. 2017 made limited contact with YFS, missed meetings, failed to complete FIRST, sent one birthday card, and attended only two visits post‑release.
Father was arrested on new drug charges in May 2018, incarcerated until Sept. 2018, then placed on supervised probation and ordered to Cornerstone; YFS found no long‑term sobriety, no stable housing/employment, and insufficient engagement with services.
YFS filed to terminate father’s parental rights alleging neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(1)) and failure to make reasonable progress (N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(2)); the trial court found past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect, terminated father’s rights, and found termination in Sarah’s best interests.
Father appealed, arguing (inter alia) insufficient findings and that incarceration/time and YFS’s alleged failures excused his noncompliance; the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the termination order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination for neglect under § 7B‑1111(a)(1) was supported	YFS: Prior adjudication of neglect plus father’s post‑release failures and ongoing criminality show past neglect and likelihood of future neglect.	Father: He wasn’t responsible for initial neglect; incarceration reduced his opportunity to comply; recent compliance shows progress.	Court: Affirmed—trial court’s findings (past neglect + likelihood of repetition based on father’s conduct) supported termination.
Whether father’s incarceration barred termination or required additional leniency	YFS: Incarceration does not excuse lack of available efforts; court may consider limited contact and post‑release conduct.	Father: Spent ~14 months in custody during the two‑year period and thus lacked time to meet case plan.	Court: Rejected—incarceration is not a shield; father’s minimal efforts while incarcerated and post‑release criminality supported termination.
Whether YFS failed to make reasonable efforts to assist reunification	YFS: Contended it met statutory requirements and repeatedly attempted to engage father and secure assessments/services.	Father: Argued YFS did not maintain contact, recommend services, or adequately assess his progress.	Court: Found YFS made reasonable efforts and that father’s nonengagement (missed meetings, no FIRST) was the primary cause of lack of progress.
Sufficiency/credibility of findings about father’s later‑efforts (post Sept. 2018)	YFS: Trial court properly discredited unsupported testimony and relied on contemporaneous review orders and social‑worker testimony.	Father: Claimed recent sobriety, treatment completion, employment, money sent and housing steps; the court omitted favorable findings.	Court: Affirmed—trial court could decline to credit undocumented testimony; remaining findings supported termination.

Key Cases Cited

In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 149 (2017) (prior neglect adjudication may be considered and post‑release conduct can support finding of likely repetition of neglect)
In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71 (2019) (standards for appellate review of termination findings and emphasis on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3 (2019) (burden and two‑stage structure of termination proceedings)
In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403 (2019) (incarceration alone is neither a sword nor a shield in termination decisions)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (2016) (dispositional stage and best‑interest analysis following adjudication)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (1984) (trial court must consider changed circumstances; child’s best interests and parent fitness are determinative)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93 (1991) (unchallenged factual findings are binding on appeal)
In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372 (2019) (finding any one statutory ground for termination is sufficient to support an order)