In re L.C.R.
Respondent-mother (“respondent”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor children Joshua,
On 8 February 2008, the Wilkes County Department of Social-Services (“DSS”) filed juvenile petitions alleging that the children were neglected due to their parents’ drug and alcohol abuse. On 11 March 2008, the trial court entered a consent order which adjudicated the children as neglected juveniles and awarded legal custody of the children to DSS. DSS then placed the children in the home of the children’s paternal grandparents (“petitioners”).
After a permanency planning review hearing, the trial court entered an order on 3 September 2008 which awarded legal and physical custody of the children to petitioners. The court additionally concluded that the matter should be converted to a civil custody action pursuant to
On 28 September 2011 petitioners filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the children’s parents. On 19 March 2012, a termination hearing was conducted in Wilkes County District Court. Respondent appeared with counsel at the hearing and presented evidence.
On 25 May 2012, the trial court entered an order which terminated respondent’s parental rights. The court’s order concluded that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s right because she (1) willfully left the children in foster care or placement outside the home for more than twelve months without showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress under the circumstances had been made in correcting the conditions which led to the children’s removal; (2) was incapable, due to substance abuse, of providing for the proper care and supervision of the children, and there was a reasonable probability that such incapacity will continue for the foreseeable future; and (3) had willfully abandoned the children for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Respondent appeals.
Respondent argues that the trial court erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights. We disagree.
The standard of review for an order terminating parental rights is whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact. In re Clark,
Pursuant to
This Court has explained that, for purposes of this ground for termination,
the legislature did not intend for any separation between a parent and a child to trigger the termination ground set forth in G.S.§ 7B-llll(a)(2) (failure to make reasonable progress). Instead, we conclude the statute refers only to circumstances where a court has entered a court order requiring that a child be in foster care or other placement outside the home.
In re Á.C.F.,
However, respondent fails to adequately explain why the court’s order converting the neglect case into a civil custody case should not qualify as a “court order” under A.G.F.
Respondent additionally argues that
However, the issue of whether or not the parent is in a position to actually regain custody of the children at the time of the termination hearing is not a relevant consideration under
Because only one ground is required to terminate parental rights, it is unnecessary to address respondent’s arguments concerning the other grounds for termination found by the court. See In re P.L.P.,
Affirmed.
Notes
. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the minor children.
. The children share a common father, whose parental rights were also terminated. However, the father did not appear at or participate in the termination hearing and is not a party to this appeal.