Best interests of the child—consideration of factors—sufficiency of findings—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that terminating a father's parental rights to his oldest son was in the child's best interests where the court properly weighed and analyzed the appropriate statutory factors. The court found that the child was highly functioning–despite his autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and aggression problems–and was making progress in therapy while in foster care, the child had an "unhealthy" bond with his parents, the child expressed a desire to be adopted, adoption was not an immediate possibility for the child but was a realistic one, and terminating parental rights would aid in achieving the permanent plan of adoption. In re L.G.G. , 379 N.C. 258 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Best interests of the child—stability—lack of adoptive placement—In a private termination of parental rights matter initiated by a child's mother, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child where the court's findings that termination would facilitate continued consistency and stability for the child was supported by the mother's testimony. Moreover, termination was not precluded by the lack of a potential adoptive second parent for the child. In re J.B. , 379 N.C. 233 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Best interests of the child—statutory factors—probability of reunification within reasonable amount of time—bond between child and parent—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of both parents' rights to their daughter was in the daughter's best interests, based on unchallenged findings of fact addressing the dispositional factors in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a). The parents' lack of progress on various aspects of their case plans–including lack of visitation with their daughter and failing to complete drug screens and mental health evaluations–supported the court's conclusion that there was no reasonable probability that reunification with the parents could be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. Further, the court's conclusion that the child had no bond with her parents was supported by evidence from the social worker and the guardian ad litem. In re S.C.C. , 379 N.C. 303 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Best interests of the child—statutory factors—proposed placement with relatives—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of a mother's parental rights to her two sons was in the children's best interests, where the court properly considered and made sufficient factual findings regarding the statutory dispositional factors, including the relationship between the children and the proposed permanent placements (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a)(5)). The court properly rejected the maternal grandmother and the maternal great-grandparents as permanent placements for the children based on findings supported by competent evidence, and–although the availability of a relative placement can be a "relevant consideration" under section 7B-1110(a)(6)–section 7B-1110 did not require the court to prioritize placing the children with relatives over non-relatives. In re N.C.E. , 379 N.C. 283 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Findings of fact—challenges—recitation of testimony and reports—independent determination of evidence—A father's numerous challenges to the findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating his parental rights–arguing that the findings were nothing more than recitations of witness testimony, reports, or the trial court's beliefs–were for the most part rejected where the trial court did refer to prior orders and reports from earlier proceedings but heard live testimony and made an independent determination regarding the evidence presented. However, the findings that simply recited witness testimony were disregarded in the appellate court's evaluation of whether grounds existed to terminate the father's parental rights. In re A.E. , 379 N.C. 177 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Findings of fact—challenges—sufficiency of evidence—pattern of neglect—A father's numerous challenges to the findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating his parental rights–arguing that the findings were overbroad or lacked evidentiary support–resulted in some findings being disregarded on appeal because of a lack of evidentiary support, while other findings, including those related to the father's continuation of the pattern of neglect, remained undisturbed because they were sufficiently supported by record evidence. In re A.E. , 379 N.C. 177 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Findings of fact—challenges—sufficiency of evidence—stipulation—A father's numerous challenges to the findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating his parental rights–arguing that the findings lacked sufficient evidentiary support or were excessively imprecise–were rejected where portions of the challenged findings were based on the father's own stipulation and portions regarding a psychologist's evaluation and testimony were supported by record evidence. In re A.E. , 379 N.C. 177 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—progress made post-petition—no misapprehension of the law—The trial court did not act under a misapprehension of the law when terminating a mother's parental rights in her daughter for failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions leading to the child's removal (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2)). Specifically, the mother failed to show that the court operated on the erroneous belief that evidence of any progress she made after the filing of the termination petition was irrelevant, where the court not only overruled a relevance-based objection to testimony describing events occurring after the petition filing but also admitted a substantial amount of evidence concerning those post-petition events. In re I.E.M. , 379 N.C. 221 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—failure to make reasonable progress—sufficiency of findings—An order terminating a mother's parental rights to her daughter was affirmed where the trial court's findings–that the mother failed to complete the programs required by her out-of-home family services agreement to address her domestic violence and parenting issues–supported the conclusion that the mother had failed to make reasonable progress under the circumstances to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). In re T.T. , 379 N.C. 317 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—findings—sufficiency of evidence—In a private termination of parental rights matter filed by the child's grandparents, the trial court's findings of fact in its order terminating the father's parental rights to his son based on neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence regarding the father's lengthy history of drug use and criminal conduct, continued drug use while incarcerated, failure to address his addiction despite the availability of services in prison, lack of a bond or relationship with his son, and lack of consistent interest in the welfare or health of his son (who had special medical needs). In re W.K. , 379 N.C. 331 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—incarceration for abuse of another child—likelihood of future neglect—In a private termination of parental rights matter initiated by a mother after her son's father entered an Alford plea in another state to molesting a different child, the trial court properly terminated the father's rights to his son on the ground of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)). The mother's testimony supported the trial court's findings that the father repeatedly molested his victim and that at least one incident occurred when the son was in the same bed. Further, the trial court's determination that there was a likelihood of future neglect was supported by evidence that the father made no effort to learn about his son's welfare in more than four years and would be unable to provide future care due to additional pending criminal charges. The father's incarceration and court-ordered prohibition from contacting his son did not absolve him of all parental responsibilities. In re J.B. , 379 N.C. 233 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—conclusions—In a private termination of parental rights matter filed by the child's grandparents, the trial court's conclusions that there existed a high probability of future neglect if the child were returned to his father's care and that the father's rights should be terminated on the ground of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) were supported by the findings of fact detailing the father's lengthy history of drug use and criminal conduct, failure to address his substance abuse, and minimal interest in the health of his son (who had special medical needs). The father's argument that he lacked the ability to pay any support while incarcerated was undermined by the unchallenged finding that he paid support for his daughter, in whom he showed more interest and with whom he sought more of a relationship than with his son. In re W.K. , 379 N.C. 331 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—likelihood of future neglect—sufficiency of findings—The trial court properly terminated respondents' parental rights to their three sons on grounds of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) where the court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence demonstrating that the children had been exposed to domestic violence, substance abuse, and pornography in the home; the children were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and exhibited behavioral issues, including sexualized behavior between the brothers; respondents completed most of their family case plans but failed to take responsibility for the children's traumas, to address the inappropriate incidents between the children (other than to fervently deny that they happened), or to understand why the children were removed from the home; and, therefore, there was a high likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to respondents' care. In re L.G.G. , 379 N.C. 258 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—neglect—sufficiency of findings—Where many of a mother's challenges to the findings of fact in the trial court's order terminating her parental rights overlapped with the father's challenges, her challenges were addressed in the same manner, resulting in some findings being disregarded and others being found to have ample evidentiary support. As with the father, the trial court did not err in determining that the mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)). In re A.E. , 379 N.C. 177 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—neglect—sufficiency of findings—The trial court did not err by concluding that a father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) where the conclusion was sufficiently supported by the findings of fact, including that both parents had stipulated to the children's neglect at the time the juvenile petitions were filed, the parents exhibited a pattern of neglect and failed to understand the importance of keeping the children and the home clean, and the father denied that the children had special needs despite evidence-based documentation of those needs. Further, the trial court properly considered circumstances up to and including the date of the termination hearing. In re A.E. , 379 N.C. 177 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Grounds for termination—not stated in conclusion section of order—referenced in findings—harmless error—Where the trial court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his son referenced the statutory ground of neglect (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)) in its findings of fact, the specific statutory grounds supporting termination did not have to be stated in the order's conclusion section. Any potential error was harmless given the court's extensive findings of fact, which were supported by ample evidence, demonstrating how the court reached its decision to terminate based on neglect. In re W.K. , 379 N.C. 331 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—sufficiency of findings—The trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights to his son on grounds of willful abandonment (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)) where the court's findings of fact–supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence–demonstrated that, during the determinative six-month period, the father (who was serving a criminal sentence) had the ability to contact his son by telephone from prison and had the contact information for the child's foster family but, nevertheless, failed to check in on his son or to provide any child support. Further, the father did not send any gifts or letters to his son from prison, and any gifts that his fiancee sent to the child were not sent at the father's direction. In re A.A.M. , 379 N.C. 167 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—sufficiency of findings—The trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to his son based on willful abandonment (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)) was supported by unchallenged findings of fact that the father had not seen his six-and-a-half-year-old son since he was a baby, he did not contact his son, he did not send money, gifts, cards, or letters, and he did not take any action to follow up on statements to the child's mother that he planned to become more involved with his son. The father's refusal to sign papers to allow the child's mother to change their son's last name was not sufficient to refute the ground of willful abandonment. In re C.K.I. , 379 N.C. 207 (2021) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Grounds for termination—willful abandonment—sufficiency of findings—In a private termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights to his daughter based on the ground of willful abandonment (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7)). Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the court's findings that, prior to the filing of the termination petition and for far longer than the determinative six-month period, the father did not send any cards or gifts to his daughter or make any attempts to contact her directly or through other family members, he did not take any steps to modify a prior custody order in order to secure visitation rights, and he only paid a third of his monthly child support obligation. In re M.E.S. , 379 N.C. 275 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—sufficiency of evidence—The trial court properly terminated a mother's parental rights to her three children based on willfully failing to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of their care although physically and financially able to do so (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3)), where clear, cogent, and convincing evidence showed that the mother had entered into a voluntary support agreement that she never moved to modify, she was employed during at least part of the six-month determinative period, but she had not voluntarily paid any support for her children. In re J.K.F. , 379 N.C. 247 (2021) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Grounds for termination—willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—sufficiency of findings—The trial court properly terminated both parents' parental rights to their daughter on the ground that they willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care although physically and financially able to do so (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3)), based on unchallenged findings that the parents were obligated by court order to pay child support but, despite being employed and not under a disability, neither parent had paid any support. The Supreme Court declined to revisit the principle established in In re J.M., 373 N.C. 352 (2020), that when a parent is subject to a valid child support order, the petitioner in a termination of parental rights case is not required to independently prove that a parent had the ability to pay support during the relevant time period. In re S.C.C. , 379 N.C. 303 (2021) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

No-merit brief—failure to make reasonable progress—The trial court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his daughter on the grounds of failure to make reasonable progress was affirmed where his counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. In re I.P. , 379 N.C. 228 (2021) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

No-merit brief—failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care—best interests of the child—The termination of a mother's parental rights to her three children on multiple grounds was affirmed where her counsel filed a no-merit brief, both the evidence and the trial court's findings of fact supported termination on grounds of willful failure to pay the reasonable costs of child care (N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3)), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the children's best interests. In re P.R.F. , 379 N.C. 298 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—multiple grounds for termination—The termination of a mother's parental rights to her daughter on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress was affirmed where the mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief, the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and the termination order was based on proper legal grounds. In re N.K. , 379 N.C. 294 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

No-merit brief—multiple grounds—best interests of the children—The termination of a mother's parental rights to three of her children on multiple grounds was affirmed where her counsel filed a no-merit brief, the trial court's findings of fact in the termination order had ample record support, those findings supported the court's conclusion that termination grounds existed, and the trial court did not err in finding that termination was in the children's best interests. In re C.M.F. , 379 N.C. 216 (2021) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

No-merit brief—neglect—The trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights to her daughter on the grounds of neglect was affirmed where her counsel filed a no-merit brief and the termination order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. In re K.W. , 379 N.C. 255 (2021) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

No-merit brief—termination on multiple grounds—The termination of a father's parental rights based on neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, dependency, and willful abandonment 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 J.G.S. , 379 N.C. 245 (2021) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)