In re C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 5, 2021
• Docket: 209A21
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-132

No. 209A21

Filed 5 November 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered 2 March

2021 by Judge Ricky W. Champion in District Court, Alamance County. This matter

was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 30 September 2021, but was

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

the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Jamie L. Hamlett for petitioner-appellee Alamance County Department of Social Services.

Thomas N. Griffin, III, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant-mother.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Respondent-mother Krystle H. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating

her parental rights in three of her children. Respondent-mother’s appellate counsel

has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s behalf pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(e). After

careful consideration of the record in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the

issues identified by respondent-mother’s appellate counsel as arguably supporting an IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

Opinion of the Court

award of relief from the trial court’s termination order lack merit and affirm the trial

court’s termination order.

¶2 Respondent-mother Krystle H. and the father James E. were married on 15

July 2006, with five children having been born of their marriage, one of whom,

N.S.E.,1 was born on 1 December 2010 in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Respondent-

mother and Mr. E. divorced on or about 21 August 2012. On or about 2 August 2012,

respondent-mother married Joe H., with D.J.H.2 having been born of their marriage

in Hattiesburg on 24 September 2013. Respondent-mother and Mr. H. divorced on

28 August 2017. C.M.F.3 was born to respondent-mother and Joshua R. in

Hattiesburg on 4 October 2017. While they were living in Mississippi, the children

were the subject of a juvenile court proceeding that involved allegations of sexual

abuse during which they were placed in foster care before being returned to

respondent-mother’s custody.

¶3 Respondent-mother and the children had been residing in North Carolina since

December 2019, when respondent-mother moved to this State in order to live with a

man that she had met through an on-line dating service. On 25 February 2020, the

1 N.S.E. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Nancy,” which

is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the juvenile’s privacy. 2 D.J.H. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Danny,” which

is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the privacy of the juvenile. 3 C.M.F. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Carol,” which

is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the privacy of the juvenile. IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

Alamance County Department of Social Services obtained the entry of an order taking

the children into nonsecure custody and filed a juvenile petition alleging that Carol,

Danny, and Nancy were neglected and dependent juveniles.4 In its petition, DSS

alleged that the children received improper supervision, had insufficient housing,

lacked proper hygiene, and had been subjected to improper discipline; that

respondent-mother lacked adequate financial resources and parenting skills and had

mental health and substance abuse-related problems; and that respondent-mother

and her boyfriend had assaulted the children. After the filing of the petition, Judge

Kathryn W. Overby communicated with the applicable judicial authorities in

Mississippi, with that state having declined to exercise jurisdiction over the children

after determining that North Carolina would be a more convenient forum.

¶4 On 22 June 2020, Judge Overby entered an adjudication order based upon

stipulations by respondent-mother in which Judge Overby found that Carol, Danny,

and Nancy were neglected and dependent juveniles, determined that a dispositional

hearing would be held at a later time, and ordered that the children remain in the

temporary custody of DSS. On 22 July 2020, Judge Overby entered a dispositional

order providing that the children would remain in DSS custody; requiring the parents

4 The underlying neglect and dependency proceeding involved children in addition to

Carol, Danny, and Nancy. However, none of these other children were the subject of the termination of parental rights proceeding that is before us in this case. As a result, we will refrain from commenting upon the proceedings relating to the other children in this opinion. IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

to provide support for the children while they were in DSS custody; and ordering that,

in order to reunify with the children, respondent-mother develop a sufficient source

of income to provide for herself and the children; provide for a safe, stable, and secure

home environment; refrain from allowing her use of unlawful substances to interfere

with her ability to parent the children; obtain a substance abuse and mental health

assessment and comply with all treatment-related recommendations; participate in

parenting education and demonstrate the ability to use the skills that she had learned

during her interactions with the children; demonstrate the ability to meet the medical

and mental health needs of the children by attending their medical and mental health

appointments; and visit with the children.5

¶5 After a permanency planning and review hearing held on 23 September 2020,

Judge Overby entered an order on 9 October 2020 in which she found, among other

things, that, while respondent-mother was employed at McDonald’s, she had failed

to provide sufficient information concerning her earnings, that respondent-mother

had failed to secure stable and adequate housing, that respondent-mother’s substance

abuse assessment had resulted in a diagnosis of tobacco use disorder, that

respondent-mother’s mental health assessment had resulted in recommendations

5 Judge Overby also ordered that the fathers take certain steps in order to be reunified

with their children. In view of the fact that there are no issues relating to the fathers before us in this case, we will refrain from describing the provisions of the dispositional order or subsequent orders relating to the fathers in this opinion. IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

that respondent-mother participate in individual and group therapy and medication

management, that respondent-mother had participated in a single medication

management session, and that respondent-mother had failed to take any steps to

satisfy her obligation to provide support for her children. As a result, Judge Overby

determined that the primary permanent plan for Carol, Danny, and Nancy should be

adoption, with a secondary plan of reunification, in light of respondent-mother’s

failure to make adequate progress toward rectifying the concerns that had led to the

children’s removal from her home.

¶6 On 24 November 2020, DSS filed a motion seeking to terminate respondent-

mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy on the grounds that respondent-

mother’s parental rights in the children were subject to termination on the basis of

neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1); failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the

care that the children had received while in a placement outside the home, N.C.G.S.

§ 7B-1111(a)(3); and dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), and that the termination

of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. On

2 March 2021, the trial court entered an order concluding that respondent-mother’s

parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy were subject to termination on the basis

of all three of the grounds for termination alleged in the termination petition and that

the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best

interests. Based upon these determinations, the trial court ordered that respondent- IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

mother’s parental rights in the children be terminated.6 Respondent-mother noted

an appeal from the trial court’s termination order to this Court.

¶7 Respondent-mother’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s

behalf. In that brief, respondent-mother’s appellate counsel identified a number of

issues that could potentially provide a basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial

court’s termination order, including whether the record evidence and the trial court’s

findings of fact provided adequate support for its determination that respondent-

mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy were subject to termination and

whether the trial court had abused its discretion by determining that the termination

of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests.

Ultimately, however, respondent-mother’s appellate counsel concluded that there

was no non-frivolous basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial court’s

determination that respondent-mother’s parental rights in the children were subject

to termination on the basis of her failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the

children’s care while in DSS custody, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3), and that, since the

termination order contained findings of fact that were supported by sufficient record

evidence relating to the dispositional factors delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and

6 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the fathers in his termination

order. In view of the fact that none of the children’s fathers have sought review of the trial court’s termination order by this Court, we will refrain from discussing the termination- related proceedings concerning the fathers any further in this opinion. IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

since the trial court’s findings of fact provided adequate support for its dispositional

decision, there was no non-frivolous basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial

court’s determination that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights

would be in the children’s best interests. Although respondent-mother’s appellate

counsel communicated with respondent-mother for the purpose of advising her that

she had a right to file written arguments for the Court’s consideration and provided

respondent-mother with the materials necessary to permit her to do so, respondent-

mother failed to submit any written arguments for consideration by the Court. Both

DSS and the guardian ad litem filed briefs expressing agreement with the conclusion

reached by respondent-mother’s appellate counsel that the record does not disclose

the existence of any arguably meritorious issues in this case.

¶8 This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit

brief filed pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(e) for the purpose of determining if any of

those issues have potential merit. In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). After a

careful review of the issues identified in the no-merit brief filed by respondent-

mother’s appellate counsel in this case in light of the record and the applicable law,

we are satisfied that the findings of fact contained in the trial court’s termination

order have ample record support and that the trial court did not err in the course of

determining that respondent-mother’s parental rights in the children were subject to

termination and that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights would IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E.

be in the children’s best interests. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s order

terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy.

AFFIRMED.