In re A.G.

798 S.E.2d 442, 2017 WL 1381811, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 291
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedApril 18, 2017
DocketNo. COA16-1066
StatusPublished

This text of 798 S.E.2d 442 (In re A.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re A.G., 798 S.E.2d 442, 2017 WL 1381811, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 291 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

A.G. ("Respondent-mother") appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter "Agatha."1 On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights because the trial court failed to consider the availability of Agatha's maternal grandmother to serve as an alternative placement for Agatha. After careful review, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

From the time of her birth in September 2008, Agatha resided primarily with her maternal grandmother ("Grandmother") until 26 September 2011 when she moved with her father and sister to Rowan County. On or about 13 November 2011, Agatha's sister, H.G., died while in the care of their father. On 25 October 2012, Agatha was adjudicated as a neglected juvenile. Custody of Agatha was awarded to the Rowan County Department of Social Services ("DSS"), and Grandmother was allowed to have visitation with her.

On 22 July 2015, DSS filed a petition to terminate parental rights. A hearing was held beginning on 17 December 2015 before the Honorable Kevin Eddinger in Rowan County District Court. On 19 July 2016, the trial court issued an order finding three grounds for termination of Respondent-mother's parental rights: (1) Respondent-mother neglected Agatha and a reasonable probability existed that the neglect would continue; (2) Respondent-mother failed to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child; and (3) Respondent-mother failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for Agatha while she was in foster care. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) (2015).

The trial court also concluded that termination of parental rights would be in Agatha's best interests.2 Respondent-mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

A proceeding to terminate parental rights is a two-step process involving an adjudication phase and a disposition phase. In re Blackburn , 142 N.C. App. 607, 610, 543 S.E.2d 906, 908 (2001). During the adjudication phase, the trial court must determine whether the petitioner has established-by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence-that at least one of the grounds for termination enumerated in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 exists. Id. If the court determines that the existence of a statutory ground for termination was established, it then moves to the disposition phase where it considers whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the juvenile. Id.

In the present case, Respondent-mother does not challenge the trial court's adjudication that grounds existed for termination. Instead, she only challenges its determination in the disposition phase that the termination of her parental rights was in Agatha's best interests given the availability of Grandmother as a possible placement option for Agatha.

This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court's determination that the termination of parental rights is in the juvenile's best interests. In re Shepard , 162 N.C. App. 215, 222, 591 S.E.2d 1, 6, disc. review denied , 358 N.C. 543, 599 S.E.2d 42 (2004). "An abuse of discretion occurs where the court's ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." In re J.L. , 199 N.C. App. 605, 608-09, 685 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) provides that in determining whether the termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests,

the court shall consider the following criteria and make written findings regarding the following that are relevant:
(1) The age of the juvenile.
(2) The likelihood of adoption of the juvenile.
(3) Whether the termination of parental rights will aid in the accomplishment of the permanent plan for the juvenile.
(4) The bond between the juvenile and the parent.
(5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile and the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, custodian, or other permanent placement.
(6) Any relevant consideration.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) (2015). While the court must consider all of these factors, it is required to make written findings of fact only regarding those factors that are relevant and have an impact upon the court's decision. In re D.H. , 232 N.C. App. 217, 221-22, 753 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2014).

In In re M.M. , 200 N.C. App. 248, 684 S.E.2d 463 (2009), disc. review denied , 364 N.C. 241, 698 S.E.2d 401 (2010), the respondent-father argued that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights to his son because the child's paternal grandmother was willing to take custody of him. We rejected this argument, holding that "[a] trial court may, but is not required to, consider the availability of a relative placement during the dispositional phase of a hearing to terminate parental rights." Id. at 258, 684 S.E.2d at 469.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Blackburn
543 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Koufman v. Koufman
408 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1991)
In Re MM
684 S.E.2d 463 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
In Re Shepard
591 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
In re D.H.
753 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014)
In re C.L.C.
628 S.E.2d 760 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)
In re C.L.C.
615 S.E.2d 704 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
In re J.L.
685 S.E.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
In re M.M.
200 N.C. App. 248 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
798 S.E.2d 442, 2017 WL 1381811, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ag-ncctapp-2017.