Permanent plan—ceasing reunification efforts—statutory requirements—sufficiency of findings—The trial court did not err by eliminating reunification from the permanent plan for three children where, although the court's order did not use the precise language found in N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1 and 7B-906.2, its findings–which detailed the parents' lack of progress and minimal engagement with their case plans–addressed the substance of those statutes and supported its determination that the return of the children to their parents would be contrary to the children's health, safety, and general welfare and that there were no realistic prospects for reunification. With regard to the father, additional findings contained in the orders terminating the parents' rights to their children cured any deficiency in the permanency planning order. In re A.P.W. , 378 N.C. 405 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Indian Child Welfare Act—termination of parental rights order—failure to make proper inquiry—Where the trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights to her child did not address whether it made the required inquiry, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a), regarding whether the child was an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and the inquiry did not appear in the record, the matter was remanded for compliance with the Act. In re A.L. , 378 N.C. 396 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Adjudication evidence—sufficiency—adoption of allegations in petition—oral testimony—The trial court did not err, in determining whether grounds existed to terminate a mother's parental rights, when it relied on a social worker's oral testimony that adopted the allegations in the termination petition. In so doing, the trial court did not improperly rely on the petition itself as the only adjudication evidence. In re Z.G.J. , 378 N.C. 500 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Appointment of guardian ad litem—parent failed to file answer to petition—trial court's discretion—Even assuming the issue was preserved for appellate review, in a private termination of parental rights proceeding where the mother failed to file an answer to the termination petitions but later decided to contest the matter, the record gave no indication that the trial court acted under a misapprehension of law or failed to exercise its discretion when it did not appoint a guardian ad litem for the children. In re M.J.M. , 378 N.C. 477 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—drug relapses—The trial court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights to her daughter for willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2)) based on evidence that the mother's substance abuse continued for at least three and a half years during the pendency of this case. Although the mother argued that relapses for addicts are common and therefore her limited progress was not unreasonable, the court's findings regarding the mother's inability to successfully complete rehabilitation or maintain sobriety for any significant amount of time supported its conclusion that her progress was not reasonable. In re A.L. , 378 N.C. 396 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—findings—evidentiary support—The trial court did not err by terminating a mother's parental rights to her daughter based on the mother's willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions which led to the child's removal (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2)) where there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, in addition to the mother's stipulations, regarding the mother's extensive history of substance abuse for which she received inadequate treatment, her refusal to submit to drug screens on multiple occasions, her incomplete mental health treatment, her housing instability, and her lack of consistent employment. In re A.S.D. , 378 N.C. 425 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Grounds for termination—failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—sufficiency of findings—determinative time period—The trial court erred in concluding that a mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care where the court's findings did not specifically address the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition. In re Z.G.J. , 378 N.C. 500 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—failure to make reasonable progress—dependency—determinative time period—The trial court erred in concluding that a mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency where the trial court relied solely on evidence of circumstances existing more than a year before the hearing–a social worker's oral testimony adopting the allegations in the termination petition–in making its factual findings. There was no evidence from the determinative time period for each of the grounds for termination, and evidence presented during the disposition hearing could not cure the error. In re Z.G.J. , 378 N.C. 500 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—failure to make reasonable progress—evidence before and after the termination petition—In determining that a father's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (neglect) and (a)(2) (failure to make reasonable progress), the trial court properly considered the totality of the evidence–both before and after the filing of the termination petition, despite the father's argument to the contrary on appeal–and determined that the events occurring after the petition's filing were unpersuasive and inadequate to overcome evidence supporting termination. In re K.N. , 378 N.C. 450 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—unstable housing and domestic violence—The trial court did not err by determining that a mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect where the court's findings were supported by the evidence, which demonstrated that the mother was likely to repeat her prior neglect if the child were returned to her care, based on the mother's lack of stable housing and unresolved domestic violence issues. Although the mother had made some progress on her case plan, at the time of the hearing she was sharing a studio apartment with a male coworker and was not on the lease, and she had failed to demonstrate an understanding of her domestic violence issues and how to protect herself and her child in the future. In re M.A. , 378 N.C. 462 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of repetition of neglect—findings—After disregarding numerous findings of fact that were mere recitations of testimony or that did not accurately reflect the record evidence, the Supreme Court nevertheless affirmed the trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights to her son based on neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) where the remaining findings were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence regarding the mother's limited progress on various aspects of her case plan, her continued contact with the child's father despite his acts of abusive behavior, and her inability to grasp or tendency to minimize the severity of the issues preventing reunification with her child. The trial court did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the mother, it adequately considered evidence of changed circumstances between the child's removal and the termination hearing, and it supported its conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect with sufficient findings of fact. In re A.C. , 378 N.C. 377 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—failure to pay for care required by decree or custody agreement—sufficiency of findings—In a private termination of parental rights action, the evidence did not support the trial court's finding that the father, who was incarcerated during the relevant time period, had willfully abandoned his child where the father testified that he spoke with his daughter every other weekend and where the petitioner, who had custody of the child, testified that the father called on Christmas. Even if the father's testimony were found not credible, the petitioner's testimony did not establish willful abandonment. The evidence also did not support the trial court's finding that the father had willfully failed to pay for care, support, or education as required by a decree or custody agreement where there was no evidence of any decree or custody agreement making such a requirement. In re S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—sufficiency of findings—willfulness—The Supreme Court rejected a mother's argument that the trial court failed to make any factual finding that her conduct was willful and therefore that the court erred by concluding her parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of willful abandonment. Even though it was labeled as a conclusion of law, the trial court did make a finding that the mother had willfully abandoned the child. In addition, the Court rejected the mother's challenge to the sufficiency of the findings because the findings reflected that she had failed to do anything to express love, affection, and parental concern during the determinative period. In re S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of cost of care—voluntary support agreement—The trial court did not err by terminating a mother's parental rights to her three children on the basis that she willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3)), where the mother signed a voluntary support agreement in which she agreed to pay $112.00 per month and she had past periods of employment, but during the determinative six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition, she was unemployed, paid nothing toward the cost of the children's care, and never moved to modify the support agreement. In re A.P.W. , 378 N.C. 405 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

No-merit brief—elimination of reunification from permanent plan—failure to make reasonable progress—The elimination of reunification with the father from his child's permanent plan and the subsequent termination of the father's parental rights on the grounds of failure to make reasonable progress were affirmed where the father's counsel filed a no-merit brief, the order eliminating reunification comported with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b), and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. In re D.M. , 378 N.C. 435 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

No-merit brief—multiple grounds for termination—record support—The termination of a father's parental rights to his son based on five separate statutory grounds was affirmed where the father's counsel filed a no-merit brief, the father did not file any written arguments, the termination order's findings of fact had ample record support, and there was no error in the trial court's determination that the father's parental rights were subject to termination and that termination would be in the son's best interest. In re J.L.F. , 378 N.C. 445 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—termination on multiple grounds—The termination of a mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care, and dependency 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 J.E.H. , 378 N.C. 440 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Pleadings—sufficiency—private termination action—reference to court order—The petition in a private termination of parental rights action comported with statutory pleading requirements (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104(2)) where the petition stated petitioners' names and address, alleged that custody had been granted to them, and referenced the custody order establishing that the child had resided with them for two years. In re S.C.L.R. , 378 N.C. 484 (2021) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Subject matter jurisdiction—standing—petition filed by department of social services—The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate a mother's parental rights where the county department of social services (DSS) had standing to file the termination petition because it had been given custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)). The social worker's testimony that she was the petitioner, when considered in context, did not mean that the petition was filed in the social worker's individual capacity. In re Z.G.J. , 378 N.C. 500 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Subject matter jurisdiction—UCCJEA—home state—record evidence—The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of a father who was living out of state where, although the court did not make an explicit finding that it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (N.C.G.S. § 50A-201), the record established that the Act's jurisdictional requirements were satisfied. The children's home state was North Carolina at the time the termination proceedings commenced, and the children had been living in North Carolina with their foster parents for more than six consecutive months immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings. In re K.N. , 378 N.C. 450 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Subject matter jurisdiction—where child resides with guardian—underlying juvenile case—In a private termination proceeding, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order terminating a mother's parental rights to her child where the child's legal permanent guardian filed the termination petition in the county in which she resided with the child (Robeson), satisfying the jurisdictional requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101. A different county's jurisdiction over the child's underlying juvenile case did not prevent the Robeson County court from having jurisdiction over the termination petition. In re M.J.M. , 378 N.C. 477 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)