Adjudication—findings of fact—sufficiency of evidence—The adjudicatory findings of fact in an order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights to her two children (based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress) were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence regarding respondent's failure to take advantage of multiple opportunities to engage in services for her substance abuse and mental health issues, her lack of progress in various treatment programs, and the effect of her behavior on her son's mental health. In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Best interests of the child—dispositional findings of fact—abuse of discretion analysis—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of respondent-mother's rights to her children was in their best interests where the court's findings addressed the statutory factors in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and were supported by competent evidence or reasonable inferences from that evidence, including findings that the bond between respondent and her daughter had lessened over time, and that respondent's behavior played a part in her son's mental health issues. The trial court was not required to make findings regarding every dispositional alternative it considered, and its findings demonstrated a reasoned decision. In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Best interests of the child—dispositional findings—sufficiency of evidence—weighing of factors—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of respondent-mother's parental rights, and not other dispositional alternatives, was in the best interests of respondent's children where the court's findings of fact–including the poor bond between respondent and her children and the negative impact of respondent's visits on the children–were supported by competent evidence and showed the court properly addressed and weighed the various dispositional factors contained in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a). In re T.A.M. , 378 N.C. 64 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Best interests of the child—potential relative placement—dispositional findings —The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of a father's parental rights was in his daughter's best interests where, one month before the termination hearing, the father requested that the department of social services consider his third cousin as a potential placement for the child. Although the court was not required to consider the availability of relative placement when making its best interests determination, the court's dispositional findings–including that the proposed placement was not appropriate and that the daughter already had a strong bond with her foster parents–showed that the court adequately considered all critical circumstances regarding the daughter's placement. In re E.S. , 378 N.C. 8 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Best interests of the child—statutory factors—child's consent to adoption—bond with mother—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of a mother's parental rights was in her fifteen-year-old daughter's best interests. The trial court was not required to consider the daughter's consent to adoption under N.C.G.S. § 48-3-601(1) (requiring minors over twelve years old to consent to adoption) when entering its disposition pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110. Further, in considering the statutory factors under section 7B-1110(a), the trial court properly considered the bond between the mother and her daughter and was not required to make written findings about that factor because the evidence on the issue was uncontested. In re E.S. , 378 N.C. 8 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Competency of parent—guardian ad litem—Rule 17—abuse of discretion analysis—In a termination of parental rights matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct a competency hearing to determine whether respondent-mother needed a Rule 17 guardian ad litem. Although respondent's psychological evaluation recommended various types of assistance after stating that respondent had borderline intellectual functioning, the evaluation also noted several positive attributes of respondent including her resourcefulness. Further, the trial court had ample opportunity to observe respondent at multiple hearings, including during respondent's testimony, and respondent exhibited appropriate judgment prior to the hearings when she told the social services agency that she did not feel ready to take her children back and asked that they remain in their relative placement. In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Effective assistance of counsel—failure to advise—steps to establish paternity—findings not challenged—meritless—In an appeal from an order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to his child in which respondent did not challenge the findings or conclusion regarding the ground of failure to establish paternity (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(5)), the Supreme Court rejected respondent's argument alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to advise him on or assist him with establishing paternity. Respondent's professed ignorance of his legal duty as a parent to establish paternity did not excuse his failure to fulfill that duty, and therefore respondent failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's alleged failure to advise him regarding that duty, a different result would have been reached at the hearing. In re B.S. , 378 N.C. 1 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—nexus between case plan and conditions that led to removal—The trial court's order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to the youngest child based on failure to make reasonable progress was supported by unchallenged findings, which showed that respondent-father failed to complete parenting classes, tested positive for controlled substances and refused at least four drug screenings, and was not incarcerated for seven months while his child was in DSS custody. Although respondent argued that he did make reasonable progress where the only condition relating to him that led to the child's removal–that his paternity had not been established–had since been corrected, there was a sufficient nexus between the substance abuse and mental health components of respondent's case plan and the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home, because the child had been removed from respondent-mother's care based on neglect caused by exposure to substance abuse. In re M.S. , 378 N.C. 30 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—failure to pay reasonable portion of cost of care—no contribution—The termination of respondent-father's parental rights for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juvenile was affirmed where the trial court found that respondent was employed and earned between $200 and $800 per week but did not provide any financial support for the child during the six months prior to the filing of the petition and the findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re J.E.E.R. , 378 N.C. 23 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental rights on the ground of neglect where its findings of fact, which were either unchallenged or supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, supported the court's conclusion that there was a likelihood of future neglect of respondent's two children if they were returned to her care, based on respondent's lack of progress in addressing her ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, and parenting skills, and her inability to acknowledge her role in her son's mental health struggles. In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—sufficiency of findings—relevant six-month period—The trial court's order terminating respondent-father's parental rights on the grounds of willful abandonment was affirmed where the unchallenged findings of fact showed that for over a year prior to the filing of the motion to terminate respondent had not visited the child, he refused to work his case plan or take any of the steps required to reunite with the child, and did not make any effort to maintain a parental bond with the child. Respondent's attempts to comply with the case plan after the filing of the petition did not bar an ultimate finding of willful abandonment because they did not occur during the determinative period for adjudicating willful abandonment–the six consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition. In re I.J.W. , 378 N.C. 17 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to make reasonable progress—failure to enter into a case plan—The trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of the father of the two oldest children based on a willful failure to make reasonable progress where the unchallenged findings showed that he did not enter into a case plan with DSS to establish the goals he needed to achieve prior to reunification–despite several opportunities to do so–and that he was not incarcerated for nine of the twenty months the children were in DSS custody. In re M.S. , 378 N.C. 30 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

No-merit brief—neglect—willful failure to make reasonable progress—The termination of a mother's parental rights–based on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress–was affirmed where the mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief, the termination order's findings of fact had ample record support, and where those findings supported the trial court's conclusions. To permit appellate review, the Supreme Court invoked Appellate Rule 2 to suspend the requirements under Rule 3.1(a) (that counsel provide copies of the no-merit brief, transcript, and record on appeal to the mother and to inform her of her right to file a pro se brief) where the mother's counsel made exhaustive efforts to contact her but to no avail. In re Z.R. , 378 N.C. 92 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—termination on multiple grounds—competent evidence and proper legal grounds—The termination of respondent-mother's parental rights based on neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and being incapable of providing proper care and supervision of the children was affirmed where the mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. In re M.S. , 378 N.C. 30 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Parental right to counsel—motion to withdraw—lack of contact—granted in parent's absence—In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing respondent-father's appointed counsel to withdraw from representation at a hearing in which respondent failed to appear. Respondent had been advised multiple times by the court of his responsibility to maintain contact with his attorney, the department of social services made diligent efforts to locate respondent, respondent appeared to actively avoid being found or receiving communications, he failed to appear at several hearings, and counsel related to the court that she spoke to respondent and he did not object to her motion. In re T.A.M. , 378 N.C. 64 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)