Rule 2—untimely pro se brief—termination of parental rights—In a termination of parental rights case, the Supreme Court exercised its authority under Appellate Rule 2 to consider a father's untimely pro se brief where his counsel filed a no-merit brief but failed to inform him of the exact deadline for submitting a pro se brief. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Adjudication of dependency—sibling died from suspected abuse—sufficiency of findings—The trial court properly adjudicated a child dependent upon sufficient evidence and findings that multiple experts reviewed the parents' explanation of the cause of fatal injuries to a sibling in the home and concluded the attributed cause could not have resulted in the injuries sustained by the sibling; that, because all the potential caregivers named by the parents believed the sibling died by accidental means, they could not provide a safe home for the child; and that respondent-mother herself could not care for the child based on her denial that the sibling died from abuse. In re A.W. , 377 N.C. 238 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Adjudication of neglect—sibling died from suspected abuse—evidence and findings—The trial court properly adjudicated a child neglected upon sufficient evidence and findings that, after a sibling died in the home of suspected abuse, the parents coordinated their stories, provided an implausible explanation regarding the cause of the sibling's injuries, and planned to deceive the court about the nature of their relationship and to conceal the true cause of the sibling's injuries. The findings supported the court's determination that respondent-mother's home was an injurious environment where the child was at substantial risk of impairment. In re A.W. , 377 N.C. 238 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Permanent plan—ceasing reunification efforts—notice—sufficiency of findings—In a consolidated adjudication and disposition and termination of parental rights proceeding, respondent-mother necessarily had sufficient notice that the permanent plan would be under review. The trial court's order ceasing reunification efforts between respondent-mother and her child was supported by sufficient evidence and findings that respondent-mother worked with respondent-father to conceal the cause of injuries sustained by a sibling in the home (which led to the sibling's death), that respondent-mother refused to acknowledge the sibling suffered abuse, and that the parents' proposed alternative placements were inappropriate because none of the potential caregivers believed the sibling was abused. In re A.W. , 377 N.C. 238 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Effective assistance of counsel—termination of parental rights—failure to show prejudice—Respondent-father was not entitled to relief from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights where he claimed to have received ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent failed to show any prejudice resulting from counsel's allegedly deficient performance and there was nothing counsel could have done to overcome the undisputed evidence of neglect. In re N.B. , 377 N.C. 349 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Indian Child Welfare Act—termination of parental rights—inquiry required—In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court erred by conducting a hearing without complying with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and related federal regulations. The court was directed on remand to ensure compliance with the Act. In re M.L.B. , 377 N.C. 335 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Best interests of the child—bond with mother—abuse of discretion analysis—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights where, although respondent claimed and the court found that the children were bonded with respondent, the court also found that the children felt safe in their placements, respondent did not provide healthy parental boundaries and she threatened physical violence during visitation sessions, there was a high likelihood that the children would be adopted by their caregivers, the children were thriving in their placements, and respondent's testimony that she would not use drugs or consume alcohol if the children were returned to her was not credible. In re A.M. , 377 N.C. 220 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Denial of motion to continue—abuse of discretion analysis—due process—In an termination of parental rights action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-father's counsel's motion to continue the termination hearing due to respondent's absence where the hearing had previously been continued twice because the parents were absent, it had been five months since the filing of the petition, respondent's unexplained absence did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance meriting a further continuance beyond the 90-day time-fame set out in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(d), respondent could not show he was prejudiced by the denial given his counsel's advocacy, and–based on the unchallenged findings–it was unlikely that the result would have been different had the hearing been continued. In re J.E. , 377 N.C. 285 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Effective assistance of counsel—failure to advise—appeal of termination case—meritless—Where a father's parental rights were terminated and his attorney filed a no-merit brief on appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the father's pro se argument alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to notify the father that he needed to contribute to the cost of his child's care, the father could not establish prejudice because ignorance did not excuse his failure to fulfill his inherent parental duty to provide support; further, there was no merit in his argument that counsel should have pursued a second appeal in his son's termination case, because his son's case was not before the trial court on remand (only his daughter's case was). In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Findings of fact—sufficiency of competent evidence—exhibit not admitted during hearing—The trial court's order terminating respondents' parental rights to their daughter on multiple grounds was reversed where the court's findings were not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Although the department of social services tendered three witnesses who gave testimony, the challenged findings of fact contained information not from their testimony but from an exhibit which was not admitted into evidence during the hearing and which was presumed to be inadmissible incompetent evidence for purposes of the appeal. In re M.L.B. , 377 N.C. 335 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—The trial court properly determined that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights based on her failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children–substance abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness–where, although respondent had acquired a structurally safe and appropriate residence and had participated in substance abuse support groups and abstained from using marijuana for a year, the unchallenged findings of fact showed respondent had multiple positive drug tests, consistently failed to comply with drug screens, failed to complete substance abuse treatment and domestic violence counseling, and was involved in repeated acts of domestic violence involving the consumption of alcohol. In re A.M. , 377 N.C. 220 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—compliance with majority of case plan—An order terminating a mother's parental rights to her son was reversed where the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that she willfully failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions leading to the child's removal from the home. Although the trial court properly considered the mother's partial noncompliance with the "parenting skills" component of her case plan with the Department of Health and Human Services, the court's remaining findings showed the mother had made reasonable progress by fully complying with the remaining components of her case plan, including those addressing her substance abuse, domestic violence issues, mental health, and housing situation. In re D.A.A.R. , 377 N.C. 258 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—relevant time period—poverty exception—An order terminating a father's parental rights was affirmed where the trial court's findings of fact supported a conclusion that he willfully failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions leading to his children's removal (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2)). The order contained sufficient findings regarding the father's lack of progress up to the date of the termination hearing (the relevant time period under the statute), and the "poverty exception" in section 7B-1111(a)(2) did not require the court to enter specific findings addressing whether poverty was the "sole reason" for the father's failure to make reasonable progress where the father presented no evidence that he was impoverished. In re T.M.L. , 377 N.C. 369 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—incarceration—no contribution—Where a father's parental rights were terminated and his attorney filed a no-merit brief on appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the father's pro se argument challenging the trial court's conclusion that the grounds of willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3)) existed to terminate his parental rights. Although he was incarcerated, he earned some money working and received some from friends and family, yet he contributed nothing to the cost of his child's care during the relevant six-month time period. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—findings—sufficiency—The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's rights to her children on the ground of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) where its findings of fact, including those regarding respondent's lack of progress in her parenting skills and the children's trauma under respondent's care, were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The evidence and findings amply demonstrated a likelihood of future neglect, based on respondent's history of failing to meet her children's basic needs, her inability to protect them from physical and sexual abuse, and her lack of progress in resolving those issues. In re M.J.B. , 377 N.C. 328 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—neglect—incarceration—likelihood of future neglect—The trial court's termination of respondent-father's parental rights based on neglect was affirmed where the children had been previously adjudicated to be neglected and the unchallenged findings established a lack of changed circumstances and a likelihood of repeated neglect. Although respondent was incarcerated or absconding for much of the time after the original adjudication of neglect, he was not incarcerated for the entirety of the case and his incarceration was not the sole evidence of neglect. Respondent failed to complete his case plan addressing the issues that led to the adjudication of neglect (substance abuse, mental health, and housing) or to remain in contact with DSS, he failed to regularly visit the children or check on their well-being, and his probation violations and criminal activity continued up until the month before the hearing. In re J.E. , 377 N.C. 285 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—incarceration—likelihood of future neglect—The trial court's termination of respondent-father's parental rights on the basis of neglect due to a likely repetition of neglect was affirmed where respondent was incarcerated, the child had been placed in foster care due to neglect caused by domestic violence and respondent's use and distribution of drugs while the child was in respondent's care prior to his incarceration, respondent was only involved in the child's life in a limited way when he was not incarcerated, and he made no attempt to contact the child during his incarceration except for a single letter and had limited contact with DSS. In re N.B. , 377 N.C. 349 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—The trial court properly determined respondent-mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect where the children had been previously adjudicated to be neglected (due to respondent's housing instability, her drug use and incarceration, domestic violence, and her leaving the children with inappropriate caretakers who subjected the children to physical and sexual abuse) and where–although respondent had made some progress towards satisfying the requirements of her case plan–there was a likelihood of future neglect due to respondent's failure to establish stable housing free from substance abuse, her lack of contact with the children, and her inability to meet the children's trauma-related needs. In re N.B. , 377 N.C. 349 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—sibling died of suspected abuse—The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental rights to her child based on neglect where, after a sibling suffered injuries in the home that led to her death from likely abuse, respondent-mother failed to acknowledge the non-accidental cause of the sibling's injuries, provided an implausible explanation for those injuries, and maintained a relationship with respondent-father. The court's findings supported its conclusion that neglect was likely to reoccur if the child were returned to respondent-mother's care. In re A.W. , 377 N.C. 238 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—incarceration—failure to contact child—The trial court properly determined that a father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of willful abandonment (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)) where it was undisputed that the father, who had been incarcerated for approximately six years when the termination petition was filed, had made no contact with his daughter during his incarceration. He failed to seek his daughter's contact information from relatives (other than a single unsuccessful attempt to ask the sister of his daughter's caregiver for the caregiver's phone number–years outside the determinative period) or to otherwise display any interest in her welfare. The father's incarceration and alleged ignorance of how to contact his child could not negate the willfulness of his abandonment. In re M.S.A. , 377 N.C. 343 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

No-merit brief—failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—The termination of a father's parental rights on the grounds of willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care was affirmed where counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

No-merit brief—neglect—failure to make reasonable progress—The termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress was affirmed where the mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. In re G.D.H. , 377 N.C. 282 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—neglect—failure to make reasonable progress —The termination of a father's parental rights to his three children–on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal–was affirmed where the father's counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. In re P.M. , 377 N.C. 366 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and abandonment—The termination of the incarcerated respondent-father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal, and willful abandonment was affirmed where respondent's counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. In re A.R.W. , 377 N.C. 234 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

No-merit brief—pro se brief—weight of evidence—Where a father's parental rights were terminated and his attorney filed a no-merit brief on appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the father's pro se argument asking the Court to reweigh the evidence. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Permanency planning—findings of fact—challenged on appeal—On appeal from the trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights and from an earlier permanency planning order, the mother's challenges to several portions of a finding of fact in the permanency planning order–regarding her positive tests for alcohol, her lack of compliance with drug screens, her failure to maintain stable housing, and incidents of domestic violence–were rejected. The trial court's error in finding that she received three–rather than two–sanctions in drug treatment court was harmless where the evidence established two sanctions. In re L.R.L.B. , 377 N.C. 311 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Permanency planning—required findings—insufficient—remedy—The trial court erred in a permanency planning order by failing to make all the written findings required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(d); specifically, even though there were sufficient findings addressing subsections (d)(1), (2), and (4), there were no findings concerning subsection (d)(3)–whether the mother "remain[ed] available to the court, the department, and the guardian litem." Where the trial court substantially complied with the statute, the appropriate remedy was to remand the matter for entry of the necessary findings and determination of whether those findings affected the decision to eliminate reunification from the permanent plan (rather than vacation or reversal of the permanency planning order or termination order). In re L.R.L.B. , 377 N.C. 311 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Subject matter jurisdiction—during pendency of appeal—order void—The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the termination of a father's parental rights in his daughter while his appeal of the adjudicatory and dispositional orders (which had been entered on remand from the Court of Appeals) was pending, so the order was void. The Supreme Court rejected the guardian ad litem's argument that the father should be required to prove prejudice in order to prevail on appeal. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)