IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021-NCSC-95
No. 473A20
Filed 27 August 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: D.M. & A.H.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (a2) from orders entered on
26 August 2019 and 5 August 2020 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare
County. This matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 21 June
2021 but determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule
30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
No brief for petitioner-appellee Dare County Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Social Services.
No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Garron T. Michael for respondent-appellant father.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent-father appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights in the minor children “David” and “Allison.”1 See N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1001(a1)(1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2) and (a2), respondent-
father also appeals from the permanency-planning order that eliminated
reunification with respondent-father from the children’s permanent plan. The
1 We use these pseudonyms to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of reading. IN RE D.M. & A.H.
Opinion of the Court
children’s mother has relinquished her parental rights and is not a party to this
appeal. We affirm.
¶2 On 1 May 2018, the Dare County Department of Health and Human Services,
Division of Social Services (DSS), obtained nonsecure custody of six-year-old David
and five-year-old Allison and filed juvenile petitions alleging they were neglected
juveniles. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 9 August 2018
adjudicating the children as neglected juveniles based on respondents’ stipulation to
the following facts:
9. On April 30, 2018, [the children’s mother] left the juveniles at her home with two persons who are not appropriate caregivers. [Her] neighbors called the police because the juveniles were yelling out of the upstairs windows that they were hungry and afraid to go downstairs.
10. Police performed a welfare check at [the children’s mother’s] home on April 30, 2018 after receiving calls from her neighbors. . . . Once the juveniles were secured, police searched [the] home. They found two small bags with a white powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the juveniles’ clothes and toy boxes. They found drug paraphernalia, including two burned pipes and two burned spoons. They also found about six grams of a powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the freezer.
11. [The children’s mother] failed to properly feed the juveniles. The home she provided for the juveniles was filthy, unkempt, and unsafe. There was moldy food in the kitchen, garbage throughout the home, and no suitable beds for the juveniles to sleep on. IN RE D.M. & A.H.
12. When [the children’s mother] arrived home, she told police that she had been on a date and had paid one of the individuals in the home $20.00 to watch the kids. She told police she had been gone for two hours and did not know who had been in her home. [She] was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
13. [Respondent-father] had limited contact with the juveniles before the Juvenile Petition was filed. He has willingly left the juveniles in the care of [the children’s mother].
14. Neither [the children’s mother] nor [respondent-father] have provided a safe, appropriate home for the juveniles.
15. [The children’s mother] and [respondent- father] have failed to provide proper care and supervision for the juveniles. They have exposed the juveniles to unsafe, injurious environments.
16. The juveniles require more adequate care and supervision than [the children’s mother] or [respondent- father] can provide in their homes.
¶3 In a disposition order entered on 6 November 2018, the trial court maintained
the children in DSS custody and awarded respondent-father one hour per week of
supervised visitation. The court found respondent-father had visited the children on
two occasions since their placement in nonsecure custody but was arrested on 20 June
2018 and was facing “serious” felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County, which
could result in “a substantial prison sentence.” The court ordered respondent-father
to enter into a visitation plan with DSS “to establish a regular, consistent visitation
schedule”; submit to random drug screens as requested by DSS and abstain from all IN RE D.M. & A.H.
intoxicating substances; obtain a substance abuse assessment and comply with all
treatment recommendations; and keep DSS apprised of his whereabouts and address.
¶4 At the initial permanency-planning hearing held on 6 February 2019, the trial
court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with the
children’s mother or respondent-father with a secondary plan of guardianship with a
relative. The court maintained these primary and secondary plans at the next
permanency-planning hearing held on 8 May 2019 and up to the permanency-
planning hearing held on 7 August 2019.
¶5 However, in its permanency-planning order entered on 26 August 2019, the
trial court changed the primary permanent plan to adoption, established a secondary
plan of reunification with the children’s mother, and relieved DSS of further
reunification efforts with respondent-father. The court found that respondent-father
had yet to enter into a case plan or visitation plan with DSS; he had submitted to a
drug screen after a court appearance on 6 February 2019 and tested positive for
marijuana and cocaine; he had scheduled an appointment for substance abuse
treatment at PORT New Horizons but failed to attend the appointment; and he had
been incarcerated since May 2019 for assaulting “his young paramour.” The court
also noted that respondent-father’s felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County
remained pending. Respondent-father filed a timely notice to preserve his right to
appeal the order eliminating reunification with him from the children’s permanent IN RE D.M. & A.H.
plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2)(a), (b) (2019).
¶6 DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights on 11
December 2019. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 3 June and 1 July
2020 and entered its “Termination of Parental Rights Order” on 5 August 2020. In its
order, the court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate respondent-father’s
parental rights for neglect, lack of reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2), (6) (2019). The trial court further concluded that termination of
respondent-father’s parental rights was in both children’s best interests. See N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1110(a) (2019). Respondent-father filed timely notices of appeal from the
termination order and from the order eliminating reunification with him from the
permanent plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (b).
¶7 Counsel for respondent-father has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s behalf
under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel
advised respondent-father of his right to file pro se written arguments on his own
behalf and provided him with the documents necessary to do so. See N.C. R. App. P.
3.1(e). Respondent-father has not submitted written arguments to this Court.
¶8 This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021-NCSC-95
No. 473A20
Filed 27 August 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: D.M. & A.H.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (a2) from orders entered on
26 August 2019 and 5 August 2020 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare
County. This matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 21 June
2021 but determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule
30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
No brief for petitioner-appellee Dare County Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Social Services.
No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Garron T. Michael for respondent-appellant father.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent-father appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights in the minor children “David” and “Allison.”1 See N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1001(a1)(1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2) and (a2), respondent-
father also appeals from the permanency-planning order that eliminated
reunification with respondent-father from the children’s permanent plan. The
1 We use these pseudonyms to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of reading. IN RE D.M. & A.H.
Opinion of the Court
children’s mother has relinquished her parental rights and is not a party to this
appeal. We affirm.
¶2 On 1 May 2018, the Dare County Department of Health and Human Services,
Division of Social Services (DSS), obtained nonsecure custody of six-year-old David
and five-year-old Allison and filed juvenile petitions alleging they were neglected
juveniles. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 9 August 2018
adjudicating the children as neglected juveniles based on respondents’ stipulation to
the following facts:
9. On April 30, 2018, [the children’s mother] left the juveniles at her home with two persons who are not appropriate caregivers. [Her] neighbors called the police because the juveniles were yelling out of the upstairs windows that they were hungry and afraid to go downstairs.
10. Police performed a welfare check at [the children’s mother’s] home on April 30, 2018 after receiving calls from her neighbors. . . . Once the juveniles were secured, police searched [the] home. They found two small bags with a white powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the juveniles’ clothes and toy boxes. They found drug paraphernalia, including two burned pipes and two burned spoons. They also found about six grams of a powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the freezer.
11. [The children’s mother] failed to properly feed the juveniles. The home she provided for the juveniles was filthy, unkempt, and unsafe. There was moldy food in the kitchen, garbage throughout the home, and no suitable beds for the juveniles to sleep on. IN RE D.M. & A.H.
12. When [the children’s mother] arrived home, she told police that she had been on a date and had paid one of the individuals in the home $20.00 to watch the kids. She told police she had been gone for two hours and did not know who had been in her home. [She] was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
13. [Respondent-father] had limited contact with the juveniles before the Juvenile Petition was filed. He has willingly left the juveniles in the care of [the children’s mother].
14. Neither [the children’s mother] nor [respondent-father] have provided a safe, appropriate home for the juveniles.
15. [The children’s mother] and [respondent- father] have failed to provide proper care and supervision for the juveniles. They have exposed the juveniles to unsafe, injurious environments.
16. The juveniles require more adequate care and supervision than [the children’s mother] or [respondent- father] can provide in their homes.
¶3 In a disposition order entered on 6 November 2018, the trial court maintained
the children in DSS custody and awarded respondent-father one hour per week of
supervised visitation. The court found respondent-father had visited the children on
two occasions since their placement in nonsecure custody but was arrested on 20 June
2018 and was facing “serious” felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County, which
could result in “a substantial prison sentence.” The court ordered respondent-father
to enter into a visitation plan with DSS “to establish a regular, consistent visitation
schedule”; submit to random drug screens as requested by DSS and abstain from all IN RE D.M. & A.H.
intoxicating substances; obtain a substance abuse assessment and comply with all
treatment recommendations; and keep DSS apprised of his whereabouts and address.
¶4 At the initial permanency-planning hearing held on 6 February 2019, the trial
court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with the
children’s mother or respondent-father with a secondary plan of guardianship with a
relative. The court maintained these primary and secondary plans at the next
permanency-planning hearing held on 8 May 2019 and up to the permanency-
planning hearing held on 7 August 2019.
¶5 However, in its permanency-planning order entered on 26 August 2019, the
trial court changed the primary permanent plan to adoption, established a secondary
plan of reunification with the children’s mother, and relieved DSS of further
reunification efforts with respondent-father. The court found that respondent-father
had yet to enter into a case plan or visitation plan with DSS; he had submitted to a
drug screen after a court appearance on 6 February 2019 and tested positive for
marijuana and cocaine; he had scheduled an appointment for substance abuse
treatment at PORT New Horizons but failed to attend the appointment; and he had
been incarcerated since May 2019 for assaulting “his young paramour.” The court
also noted that respondent-father’s felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County
remained pending. Respondent-father filed a timely notice to preserve his right to
appeal the order eliminating reunification with him from the children’s permanent IN RE D.M. & A.H.
plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2)(a), (b) (2019).
¶6 DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights on 11
December 2019. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 3 June and 1 July
2020 and entered its “Termination of Parental Rights Order” on 5 August 2020. In its
order, the court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate respondent-father’s
parental rights for neglect, lack of reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2), (6) (2019). The trial court further concluded that termination of
respondent-father’s parental rights was in both children’s best interests. See N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1110(a) (2019). Respondent-father filed timely notices of appeal from the
termination order and from the order eliminating reunification with him from the
permanent plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (b).
¶7 Counsel for respondent-father has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s behalf
under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel
advised respondent-father of his right to file pro se written arguments on his own
behalf and provided him with the documents necessary to do so. See N.C. R. App. P.
3.1(e). Respondent-father has not submitted written arguments to this Court.
¶8 This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit
brief filed pursuant to Appellate Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019).
Respondent-father’s counsel has identified issues that could arguably support an
appeal in this case while also explaining why, based on a careful review of the record, IN RE D.M. & A.H.
these issues lack merit.
¶9 With regard to the order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan,
counsel for respondent-father acknowledges that competent evidence supports the
trial court’s findings of fact and that the findings support the court’s conclusion that
further efforts to reunify David and Allison with respondent-father “would clearly be
unsuccessful or inconsistent with the juveniles’ need for a permanent pla[cement]
within a reasonable period of time.” See N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019). At the time of
the permanency-planning hearing respondent-father had made no meaningful steps
toward reunification; he was incarcerated for a recent act of domestic violence; he had
submitted to just one drug screen, which was positive for marijuana and cocaine; and
he had failed to attend a scheduled appointment to begin substance abuse treatment.
The trial court’s ceasing of reunification efforts with respondent-father thus comports
with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b).
¶ 10 Turning to the termination order, counsel for respondent-father concedes that
“the existence of a single ground for termination suffices to support the termination
of a parent’s parental rights in a child,” In re J.S., 2021-NCSC-28, ¶ 24, and that the
evidence and the trial court’s findings support a conclusion under N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(2) that respondent-father willfully left the children in a placement outside
the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct
the conditions leading to their removal. Respondent-father’s failure to comply with IN RE D.M. & A.H.
the court’s orders or address his substance abuse issues, as well as his continued
involvement in criminal conduct and resulting incarceration, evinced a lack of
reasonable progress since the children were removed from the children’s mother’s
custody in May 2018. See In re Z.K., 375 N.C. 370, 373 (2020). The trial court did not
err in adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination pursuant to N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1111(a)(2).
¶ 11 Finally, the trial court made written findings addressing each of the factors
relevant to disposition under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a). As counsel for respondent-father
admits, the findings provide a rational basis for the trial court’s assessment that
terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests
in that it will facilitate the children’s adoption by their maternal aunt and uncle. We
further note these findings are supported by competent evidence presented at the
termination hearing. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion during the dispositional stage of the proceeding by choosing to terminate
respondent-father’s parental rights. In re Z.K., 375 N.C. at 373, 847 S.E.2d at 749.
¶ 12 Having considered the entire record and the issues identified in the no-merit
brief, we affirm the trial court’s order eliminating reunification from the permanent
plan and the trial court’s order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.