In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88

Background:

Two children (Zane and Ethan) were removed from respondents' care in 2017 after repeated CPS reports documenting long histories of parental substance abuse and domestic violence; children were placed with maternal grandparents.
Respondents stipulated to neglect/dependency on September 6, 2017; the case plan required substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence treatment, random drug/alcohol screens, supervised visitation, housing/employment stability, and cooperation with services.
Mother repeatedly relapsed, engaged in criminal activity while using, failed to complete required domestic-violence treatment, and remained in a relationship with father; father had intermittent sobriety, failed and evaded alcohol screens, completed outpatient programming but relapsed, and only entered inpatient treatment shortly before the termination hearing.
The trial court ended reunification efforts in November 2018 and changed the primary permanency plan to adoption; DSS moved to terminate parental rights in December 2018 on grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the children outside the home for more than 12 months without reasonable progress.
At the February 2019 termination hearing the court found continued neglect, a likelihood of future neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and that termination served the children’s best interests; respondents appealed (father contests adjudication and best interests; mother contests best interests).

Issues:

Issue	DSS's Argument	Father's/Mother's Argument	Held
Whether respondents' rights could be terminated for neglect under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (likelihood of future neglect after past neglect)	Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence shows continued substance abuse, domestic violence, relapses, failed/evaded screens, and thus a probability of future neglect.	Father: trial court failed to consider changed circumstances and more recent evidence (possible post-hearing sobriety); Mother: (did not contest factual findings).	Affirmed. Court found sufficient factual findings and evidence (including post-October 2018 relapse and only one 3-month sobriety period) supporting likely future neglect.
Whether father’s rights could be terminated under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (willfully left child outside home >12 months and failure to make reasonable progress)	Father willfully left children outside home and did not make reasonable progress given repeated relapses, failed screens, evasion, and limited participation in inpatient treatment until facing termination.	Father: progress was sufficient; lack of perfection in case plan should not warrant termination; argued inability to complete DV counseling before substance treatment should not be held against him.	Affirmed (court need only find at least one ground; court found §§7B-1111(a)(2) also supported termination based on same pattern of relapse and lack of reasonable progress).
Whether terminating parental rights was in children’s best interests under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (factors like age, likelihood of adoption, bond, permanency)	Termination advances primary permanency plan (adoption), children are bonded to stable adoptive placement (maternal grandparents), adoption is likely, and stability outweighs parent-child bonds.	Respondents: court undervalued parent-child bond and children's preferences; should have considered guardianship as an alternative to preserve parental rights.	Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; it weighed statutory factors, acknowledged bonds, and reasonably determined adoption with grandparents best served children’s interests.

Key Cases Cited

In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (2016) (standard requiring showing of past neglect plus likelihood of future neglect when child separated long-term)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (1984) (courts must consider changed circumstances when assessing likelihood of future neglect)
In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432 (2019) (best-interests analysis: bond is one factor and may be outweighed by others)
In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71 (2019) (distinguishing evidentiary facts, ultimate findings, and conclusions of law; sufficiency of factual findings required)
In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16 (2019) (appellate review standards for adjudication and conclusions of law)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (best-interest of child is paramount in termination decisions)
In re O.C., 171 N.C. App. 457 (2005) (two-step analysis for §7B-1111(a)(2): willful leaving >12 months and reasonable progress inquiry)
Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for certain trial-court determinations)
Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U.S. 481 (1937) (distinction between primary evidentiary facts and ultimate findings)