In re Z.V.A., 835 S.E.2d 425

Background

Zoey was reported to DSS shortly after birth in Dec 2016 due to domestic violence, respondent‑father's alcohol/assaultive behavior, and respondent‑mother's cognitive limitations; DSS had prior involvement with the parents (2012–2015) ending in termination/relinquishment of parental rights to an older child.
DSS filed neglect/dependency petition April 2017; in July 2017 the court adjudicated Zoey neglected and ordered case plans (psych evals, parenting, DV treatment, no substance use); Zoey remained in DSS custody.
Permanency planning order (June 2018) set adoption as primary plan and directed DSS to seek termination; Zoey was placed with maternal aunt in New Jersey in July 2018 and DSS filed a termination petition.
At the termination hearing (Oct 29–31, 2018) evidence showed mother has an IQ ≈64 and a diagnosis of mild intellectual disability but had adaptive skills and completed some services; father had history of alcohol/assault and would not commit to keeping Zoey away from mother despite concerns about her parenting.
The district court (Mar 1, 2019) found grounds to terminate both parents’ rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B‑1111(a)(1) and that termination was in Zoey’s best interest; parents appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into respondent‑mother’s competence / appoint a guardian ad litem	Mother not shown to be incompetent; her adaptive skills and participation in services made GAL unnecessary	Mother contended IQ and limitations showed she lacked capacity and needed a GAL under Rule 17 / § 7B‑1101.1(c)	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence showed only mild disability and adaptive skills, not incompetence requiring GAL inquiry
Whether clear, cogent, and competent evidence supported adjudication of neglect as to respondent‑father (future neglect likelihood)	Past neglect established; future neglect likely because father would not promise to keep Zoey from mother and continued to co‑parent despite conflict	Father argued insufficient evidence of likely future neglect at time of hearing	Court affirmed termination under § 7B‑1111(a)(1): unchallenged findings (father’s refusal to separate parenting, ongoing marital conflict, credibility determinations) supported likelihood of future neglect
Whether judge was biased / should have recused sua sponte for prejudgment because child was placed out‑of‑state before termination hearing	Context showed judge had previously set permanency plan based on evidentiary findings; explanation did not demonstrate disqualifying bias	Parents argued the judge’s comments showed the judge had prejudged case and should have recused	Court addressed issue sua sponte and held no duty to recuse; statement was explanation of prior action and did not show prejudgment or require disqualification

Key Cases Cited

In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101 (2015) (standard for reviewing GAL/competence inquiries and abuse of discretion)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (1988) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (termination proceedings: adjudication vs. disposition stages)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (2016) (requirements for proving future neglect and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (1984) (when child separated long time, need proof of past neglect and likelihood of future neglect)
Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355 (1968) (trial court’s responsibility to assess witness credibility)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93 (1991) (unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal)