In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101

Mother (respondent) gave birth in April 2013 and voluntarily placed the child, T.L.H., with Guilford County DHHS citing unsafe home and illicit drug exposure; she had documented serious mental-health diagnoses and intermittently was noncompliant with medication but expressed a desire to reunify.
DHHS filed neglect/dependency and later a termination-of-parental-rights petition alleging incapability due to mental illness, substance dependence, and a prior termination involving another child.
A guardian ad litem (GAL), Amy Bullock, was provisionally appointed for mother at an early hearing; the appointment order did not specify whether the GAL served in a substitutive (for an incompetent parent) or assistive role (for diminished capacity).
Pretrial and permanency hearings occurred; mother testified coherently at the permanency hearing, obtained housing, but failed to comply with much of her case plan and had limited visitation.
At a pretrial hearing (no transcript in the record) a judge stated Ms. Bullock was released by operation of law effective Oct. 1, 2013 (after statutory amendment); at the termination hearing the trial court terminated mother’s parental rights and found multiple statutory grounds including incapability.
Court of Appeals (divided) reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into mother’s competence and the need for appointment of a parental GAL; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	DHHS / GAL (appellants) argument	Mother (respondent) argument	Held
Whether trial court must inquire into a parent’s competence to decide appointment of a parental guardian ad litem even when no party requested such an inquiry	Judge Jarrell effectively determined no competency-based GAL was required at pretrial; therefore no further inquiry was necessary before the termination hearing	The trial court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into mother’s competence given substantial evidence of serious mental illness and past noncompliance	The Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals and held no abuse of discretion: trial court was not required to conduct a competency inquiry because the record contained sufficient evidence that mother was competent to participate and appellate review is deferential
Whether allegations/diagnoses of mental illness alone require a competency inquiry and appointment of a substitutive GAL	Allegations of mental-health-related incapability do not automatically mandate a competency inquiry; competency and incapability are distinct legal standards	Mental-health diagnoses that raise questions regarding competence require the court to inquire and potentially appoint a GAL	Held that diagnosable mental illness alone does not automatically require a competency inquiry; trial court may (but is not always required to) investigate further based on the totality of record evidence

In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. 66 (2005) (trial court must inquire into competency when circumstances raise a substantial question whether litigant is non compos mentis)
In re N.A.L., 193 N.C. App. 114 (2008) (fact-specific holding that mental-health facts in that record required competency inquiry)
In re M.H.B., 192 N.C. App. 258 (2008) (appointment-of-GAL and competency determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225 (1966) (competency determinations rest in trial judge's discretion)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (1988) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Artesani v. Gritton, 252 N.C. 463 (1960) (appellate courts defer to trial judge's factual determination of competency where evidence supports it)