In re A.R.W., H.N.W., and S.L.W.

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: April 23, 2021
• Docket: 271A20
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-43

No. 271A20

Filed 23 April 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: A.R.W., H.N.W., and S.L.W.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered 12 March

2020 by Judge Monica M. Bousman in District Court, Wake County. This matter was

calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 19 March 2021 but determined on

the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North

Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Robin E. Strickland for petitioner-appellees.

Leslie Rawls for respondent-appellant father.

NEWBY, Chief Justice.

¶1 Respondent, the biological father of the minor children, A.R.W. (Amy), H.N.W.

(Hazel), and S.L.W. (Susan)1, appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his

parental rights. Counsel for respondent has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule

3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues

identified by counsel in respondent’s brief are meritless and therefore affirm the trial

court’s order.

1 Pseudonyms are used for ease of reading and to protect the juveniles’ identities. IN RE A.R.W., H.N.W., AND S.L.W.

Opinion of the Court

¶2 This is a private termination of parental rights action filed by the children’s

legal custodians, Mr. and Mrs. W (petitioners). On 20 December 2013, Wake County

Human Services (WCHS) filed a petition alleging that Amy and Hazel were neglected

and dependent juveniles. The petition alleged that on or about 12 March 2013, WCHS

received a report that respondent assaulted the mother in the presence of the

children. Respondent was “reported to have kicked and choked [the mother] and

pulled her out of the car by her hair.” The mother entered into a Safety Plan placing

the children in the maternal great-grandmother’s home.

¶3 On 28 January 2014, respondent consented to the entry of an order

adjudicating Amy and Hazel to be neglected juveniles based on their living in an

injurious environment due to the parents’ domestic violence and substance abuse

issues. The trial court ordered respondent to enter into and comply with an Out of

Home Services Agreement to address the reasons for the children’s removal. The trial

court ordered respondent to have one hour of supervised visitation every other week.

¶4 Following a hearing on 21 April 2014, the trial court entered an order adopting

a permanent plan of reunification.

¶5 On 25 September 2014, when the mother was eight months pregnant with

Susan, she reported that respondent abducted, assaulted, and raped her at gunpoint.

Respondent later pled guilty to first-degree kidnapping and is currently serving a

sentence of a minimum of eight years to a maximum of ten years, eight months in IN RE A.R.W., H.N.W., AND S.L.W.

custody. His projected release date is 23 September 2022.

¶6 In September 2014, Amy and Hazel were removed from the maternal great-

grandmother’s home due to her poor health, and they were placed with petitioners,

who are licensed foster parents. Subsequently, the trial court suspended respondent’s

visitation on 14 November 2014. The trial court found that respondent was not in

compliance with his Out of Home Services Agreement. On 5 February 2015, the trial

court ceased reunification efforts with respondent.

¶7 In March 2015, Amy and Hazel were returned to the mother’s home.

Petitioners visited with Amy and Hazel “from time to time” and provided childcare

when requested by the mother. On 21 September 2016, the mother passed away from

an apparent heroin overdose. Following the mother’s death, Amy, Hazel, and Susan

went to live with the maternal great-grandmother until November 2016, when she

was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, petitioners assumed fulltime care of all

three children. The children have resided with petitioners since November 2016.

¶8 The maternal grandfather and his wife filed a complaint for custody of the

children in District Court, Wake County, and petitioners intervened. On 27 February

2017, the trial court entered a Temporary Custody Order granting petitioners

temporary physical and legal custody of the children. Following a hearing on 27

November 2017, the trial court entered an order on 17 May 2018 granting petitioners

permanent physical and legal custody of the children. Nevertheless, petitioners and IN RE A.R.W., H.N.W., AND S.L.W.

the children have maintained relationships with the maternal grandparents.

¶9 On 12 July 2019, petitioners filed petitions to terminate respondent’s parental

rights to the children alleging 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. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2), (7) (2019). Following a hearing held

on 13 February 2020, the trial court entered an order on 12 March 2020 terminating

respondent’s parental rights. The trial court concluded grounds existed to terminate

his parental rights based on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make

reasonable progress. The court noted that despite the earlier order requiring

respondent to demonstrate changes learned relating to domestic violence, to resolve

criminal matters, and to be of lawful behavior, respondent was found guilty of

multiple infractions during his incarceration. These infractions included gang

behavior, assault on staff, possessing a weapon, and coordinating an assault. The

trial court further concluded it was in the children’s best interests that respondent’s

parental rights be terminated. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2019). Respondent

appealed from the termination order.

¶ 10 Counsel for respondent has filed a no-merit brief on respondent’s behalf under

Rule 3.1(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In her brief, counsel identified four

issues that could arguably support an appeal but also explained why she believed IN RE A.R.W., H.N.W., AND S.L.W.

these issues lacked merit. Counsel also advised respondent of his right to file pro se

written arguments on his own behalf and provided him with the documents necessary

to do so. Respondent filed a pro se brief asking this Court to reverse the trial court

order terminating his parental rights and reiterating some of his testimony at the

termination hearing. Specifically, respondent stated that he loves his children, he

took classes while incarcerated to become a better parent and person, he wrote and

called his children while he was incarcerated, petitioners hung up the phone when he

tried to call the children the last time, and he has been incarcerated for most of the

children’s lives. Respondent noted his aunt as a potential caregiver for the children,

an argument that the trial court previously considered at length and rejected in its

order. Respondent did not, however, present any reviewable legal arguments in his

brief.

¶ 11 We independently review issues identified by counsel in a no-merit brief filed

pursuant to Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402, 831 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2019).

After considering the entire record and respondent’s pro se brief and reviewing the

issues identified in the no-merit brief, we conclude that the 12 March 2020 order is

supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and is based on proper legal

grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s

parental rights.

AFFIRMED.