An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-576
Filed 6 May 2026
Harnett County, Nos. 24JT000044-420, 24JT000045-420
IN THE MATTER OF: G.C., G.C.
Appeal by respondent-mother from order entered 26 February 2025 by Judge
Travis N. Wheeler in Harnett County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
21 April 2026.
Peter Wood for appellant-respondent-mother.
Torrie Humphreys for petitioner-appellee Harnett County Department of Social Services.
Michelle F. Lynch for the Guardian Ad Litem.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Respondent-mother (“Mother”) appeals from order terminating her parental
rights to her children, Greg and Gertrude.1 For the following reasons, we affirm the
trial court’s order.
1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the minor children. IN RE: G.C., G.C.
Opinion of the Court
I. Background
Greg was born in January 2017 and adjudicated neglected after a hearing on
14 October 2019. The trial court found that on 17 June 2019, Mother left Greg alone
and unsupervised in her car while she went inside an establishment. Greg was alone
for at least 17 minutes. He unbuckled his car seat and was found out by the road.
Additionally, on 22 July 2019, there was a domestic violence incident between Mother
and Greg’s father (“Father”)2 while Greg was in the car. Father was driving and
Mother began yelling and acting erratically. She kicked the steering wheel and
Father pulled over. When law enforcement arrived on the scene, Mother was
combative with them. Law enforcement allowed Father to leave with Greg and
offered to give Mother a ride home. She declined and then walked into traffic while
making statements indicating that she wanted to kill herself. Mother was taken into
emergency custody for her own protection and admitted into the hospital.
The trial court also found that Mother had inappropriately slapped Greg on
several occasions dating back to 2018. On one specific occasion in the summer of
2019, Mother slapped him hard enough to cause Greg to fall to the ground. Mother
would also occasionally kick and hit Father in Greg’s presence. The trial court
concluded that Greg did not receive proper care, supervision or discipline from a
parent and lived in an environment injurious to his welfare. Accordingly, the trial
2 Father is deceased and not a party to this action.
-2- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
court awarded legal and physical custody of Greg to the Harnett County Department
of Social Services (“DSS”) and granted Mother supervised visitation. The trial court
then conducted a permanency planning review hearing on 10 January 2020, after
which it entered an order establishing a primary permanent plan of custody with a
relative or other suitable person and a secondary permanent plan of reunification.
Gertrude was born on 26 January 2020 and adjudicated neglected following a
hearing on 26 June 2020. The trial court found that when Gertrude was born, she
was admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (“PICU”). During Gertrude’s stay
in the PICU, Mother and Father were allowed to stay in a nearby Ronald McDonald
House. However, they did not spend sufficient time with Gertrude, once going three
days without visiting. Gertrude was going to need special care upon discharge, and
Mother and Father did not learn what they needed to do to address those needs.
When Mother did visit, she told hospital staff she needed to leave to tend to Greg,
despite Greg being in DSS custody at the time. Additionally, Mother and Father left
the room at the Ronald McDonald House in a filthy state and police were called to
investigate reports of domestic violence between them at least twice.
The trial court concluded that Gertrude did not receive proper care,
supervision, or discipline and, if released to a parent, would have lived in an
environment injurious to her welfare. Accordingly, the trial court awarded legal and
physical custody of Gertrude to DSS. The trial court did not award a minimum period
or frequency of visitation with Mother, instead leaving visitation to the discretion of
-3- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
DSS.
While the children were in DSS custody, Mother had few visits with them.
Mother attended visits with Greg on 13 February and 27 February 2020. She missed
visits on 23 January and 12 March 2020. After 20 March 2020, face-to-face visits
ceased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mother requested her first virtual visit with
Greg on 5 August 2020 which took place on 20 August 2020. After the visit, Greg had
two temper tantrums. Mother requested several other visits in late 2020 to early
2021, which she ultimately did not schedule or attend. Mother had no visits with the
children after 2021, which she attributes to DSS declining to exercise its discretion
to arrange visits. However, Mother did regularly provide clothes, toys, and school
supplies for the children.
The trial court ceased reunification efforts and established adoption as the
primary permanent plan in Permanency Planning Review Orders entered
20 August 2021. In the orders, the trial court summarized Mother’s progress on her
case plan. Mother’s case plan included obtaining a mental health or psychological
evaluation as well as a substance abuse assessment and following all
recommendations for treatment. Mother cooperated with a clinical assessment at
Daymark Recovery Services (“Daymark”) on 13 February 2020 and was diagnosed
with PTSD and Cannabis Use Disorder. She was referred to a therapist, a 16-week
parenting group, and a Seeking Safety Group, which focuses on substance abuse and
domestic violence. However, Mother did not return to Daymark after her assessment
-4- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
and was eventually dropped from the group sessions due to her absences.
Mother told her DSS social worker that she did not have mental health issues
and only needed parenting classes. However, she also expressed a desire to find
another program like Daymark. In January 2021, Mother completed a
comprehensive clinical assessment at Freedom House. She was diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The assessment found that Mother did
not meet the criteria for substance abuse. Her clinician recommended individual
therapy and a psychiatric evaluation for medication management, but Freedom
House had not linked Mother with any services due to staffing changes and shortages.
Mother refused to acknowledge symptoms of PTSD.
Mother’s case plan also included cooperation with drug screens. Mother
cooperated with a drug screen at Daymark on 13 February 2020 and tested positive
for THC. Her social worker attempted to schedule a drug screen at noon on
22 September 2020, but Mother did not respond until 2:25 p.m. that day, after drug
screening had finished for the day. Mother cooperated with a drug screen on
27 October 2020 and tested negative.
Another goal in Mother’s case plan was completion of a parenting program. As
mentioned above, Mother failed to attend the parenting class at Daymark in
February 2020. In May 2020, Mother inquired about taking parenting classes online.
On 12 June 2020, Mother reported that she was going to take classes at SAFEchild,
including parenting classes. Mother missed several classes and was marked absent
-5- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
at least twice for sleeping through class. She completed the parenting classes on
23 November 2020.
Mother’s case plan also required that she obtain and maintain stable
employment and housing. Mother provided DSS with a new address on
27 February 2020 and a copy of a lease on 4 May 2020. Person County DSS
completed a home study and discovered that the home did not have a working smoke
detector. From 12 August 2020 to November 2020, Mother worked at GKN
Automotive. At the time of the 11 June 2021 hearing, Mother was employed at
Carolina Meadows and Wisdom Senior Care.
The trial court concluded in its Permanency Planning Review Order that
Mother had not made adequate progress on her case plan within a reasonable period
of time. While Mother had recently started making some effort, the trial court found
that she had made very little progress. Additionally, Mother was frequently
uncooperative with the DSS social worker.
On 8 February 2023, Mother gave birth to another child, G.J.3 Mother left the
child unattended in a car while she was gambling on at least two occasions while the
child was between one and two weeks old. When the child was four weeks old, Mother
left them unattended in a hotel room in Miami, Florida. The child was eventually
brought into the custody of the Miami-Dade County DSS.
3 Initials are used to protect the identity of the minor child. Mother’s parental rights to G.J. are not a subject of this action.
-6- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
DSS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Greg and Gertrude
on 30 May 2024. The trial court conducted hearings on 12 November 2024,
7 January 2025, and 21 January 2025. The trial court received testimony from past
and current social workers describing Mother’s progress on her case plan and their
opinions on her ability to care for the children. Each social worker provided examples
of Mother making some progress under the case plan but expressed concern about
her lack of consistency and stability. Mother also testified on her own behalf.
Following the hearings, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s
parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in foster care,
and willfully abandoning the juveniles. The order incorporated the above-mentioned
findings from its past orders and additionally found that Mother’s neglect continued
because she was not cooperating with a plan of reunification and her failure to make
substantial progress in her case plan was inconsistent with the health and safety of
the children. The order also described instances of Mother’s erratic behavior during
interactions with DSS in 2021 and noted that Mother has had minimal contact with
DSS since 2021. Mother filed notice of appeal to this Court on 28 March 2025.
II. Discussion
Mother challenges several of the trial court’s findings of fact and argues that
the trial court erred in finding that there were grounds to terminate her parental
rights based on neglect, willfully leaving the children in foster care, and abandoning
her children. For the following reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in
-7- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
finding that there were grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights based on
neglect. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
A. Standard of Review
“We review a trial court’s adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 ‘to determine
whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the
findings support the conclusions of law.’ ” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019)
(quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). When a finding of fact is
supported by such evidence, it is “conclusive even if the record contains evidence that
would support a contrary finding.” In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 379 (2019) (citation
omitted). Additionally, unchallenged findings of fact made by the trial court are
binding on appeal. In re Z.V.A., 373 N.C. 207, 211 (2019). We review “only those
findings needed to sustain the trial court’s adjudication.” In re J.S., 374 N.C. 811,
814 (2020) (citation omitted).
Where a trial court finds multiple grounds for termination, and this Court
agrees that at least one ground supports this conclusion, “it is unnecessary to address
the remaining grounds.” In re P.L.P., 173 N.C. App. 1, 8 (2005) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). The trial court’s legal conclusion that the findings support
a statutory ground for termination of parental rights is reviewed de novo. In re
I.M.S., 298 N.C. App. 689, 694 (2025).
B. Neglect
-8- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
“A trial court may terminate parental rights if it concludes the parent has
neglected the juvenile within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-101.” In re M.S.E., 378
N.C. 40, 47 (2021) (citing N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)). A neglected juvenile is defined,
in relevant part, as a juvenile whose parent “[d]oes not provide proper care,
supervision, or discipline” or “[c]reates or allows to be created a living environment
that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15). Termination of
parental rights may be “based on neglect that is currently occurring at the time of the
termination hearing” or, if the child has not been in the custody of the parent for a
significant time prior to the termination hearing, “a likelihood of future neglect by
the parent.” In re B.R.L., 379 N.C. 15, 21 (2021).
To determine whether future neglect is likely, “ ‘evidence of neglect by a parent
prior to losing custody of a child—including an adjudication of such neglect—is
admissible in subsequent proceedings to terminate parental rights[.]’ ” In re M.S.E.,
378 N.C. at 48 (quoting In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 715 (1984)). However, the trial
court must also “consider evidence of changed circumstances occurring between the
period of past neglect and the time of the termination hearing.” In re Z.G.J., 378 N.C.
500, 509 (2021) (quoting In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838, 841 (2020)). “It is well established
that . . . ‘[t]he determinative factors must be the best interests of the child and the
fitness of the parent to care for the child at the time of the termination proceeding.’ ”
Id. (quoting In re Ballard, 311 N.C. at 715). “A parent’s failure to make progress in
-9- IN RE: G.C., G.C.
completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect.” In re M.J.S.M.,
257 N.C. App. 633, 637 (2018) (citation omitted).
In In re Z.G.J., our Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s adjudication
terminating parental rights on the neglect ground where the trial court failed to
consider evidence of changed circumstances occurring between the period of past
neglect and the time of the termination hearing. 378 N.C. at 509–10. There, the only
evidence offered by DSS at the September 2019 adjudication hearing was witness
testimony from the social worker who had worked with the family and signed a
verification for the neglect petition that was filed in August 2018. Id. at 503–509.
She testified that she reviewed the contents of the neglect petition, was satisfied that
they were true and accurate to the best of her knowledge, and adopted the contents
as her testimony at the adjudication hearing. Id. at 506–507. She did not testify
about any events or circumstances occurring after the filing of the petition. Id. at
507. Our Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by relying solely on the
thirteen-month-old petition because its “stale information” did not “shed any light on
the respondent’s fitness to care for [the child] at the time of the termination
hearing[.]” Id. at 509–510.
Here, the trial court’s relevant findings are supported by clear, cogent and
convincing evidence and the findings support the termination of Mother’s parental
rights on the ground of neglect. Relevant to our determination, Mother challenges
the following findings of fact by the trial court:
- 10 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
48. Grounds exist pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 for the termination of parental rights of [Mother] as to the juveniles [Greg] and [Gertrude] in that: a. Neglect § 7B-1111(a)(l): .... iv. The mother’s neglect continues as she is not cooperating with a plan of reunification. Her failure to make substantial progress is conduct inconsistent with the health and safety of the children.
v. The mother did not visit with the juveniles on a regular or consistent basis. The mother last visited with [Greg] and [Gertrude] in 2021.
vi. The mother has not alleviated the concerns of which the juveniles were removed from her care. The mother gave birth to another juvenile, G.J. on February 8, 2023. The mother left the juvenile unattended in a car while gambling at the sweepstakes on at least two occasions while the juvenile was approximately 1-2 weeks old. The mother left the juvenile unattended in a hotel room in Miami, Florida while the juvenile was approximately four weeks old. The juvenile is in the custody of Miami-Dade County, Florida Department of Social Services.
vii. The mother maintained contact with the social worker since the June 2021 hearing date until December 1, 2021. Her behavior was erratic and shows that she is unstable and unable to provide a safe and adequate home for the juvenile. She has only had minimal contact with DSS since 2021. .... ix. The mother attended a permanency planning review meeting on December 8, 2021. The mother displayed erratic behavior during the meeting. She cut off a social worker supervisor several times. She was unable to control her emotions or to have a meaningful conversation with the other participants. .... xi. The mother’s non-cooperation and non-compliance with a plan of reunification throughout the duration of the time
- 11 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
the juveniles have been in care evidence a likelihood that the neglect has and will repeat and continue if the juveniles were returned to the care of the mother.
xii. The juveniles remain at risk of substantial harm or substantial risk of harm if the juveniles were returned to the care of the mother.
Each finding is supported by testimony at the termination hearing. Three DSS
social workers provided testimony at the termination hearing to provide a
comprehensive picture of Mother’s progress on her case plan. The first social worker
was involved with the family through April 2023 and testified about Mother’s
progress on her case plan during that time. She testified that DSS had no contact
with Mother from January to April 2023 and that outside of 2023, Mother was not
able to maintain consistent contact with DSS, despite Mother’s case plan requiring
monthly or regular contact with the social workers. She also stated that since she
has been involved with Mother, her progress on her case plan “has been inconsistent.”
DSS did not receive consistent pay stubs and Mother moved several times. Further,
Mother’s lack of progress, particularly with her mental health, was evident in her
outbursts with DSS.
As to specific events, the social worker testified that Mother displayed erratic
behavior during the 8 December 2021 permanency planning review meeting. She
stated that Mother cut off her supervisor several times and was unable to control her
emotions. She said “it was very hard for us to have a meaningful conversation with
[Mother] at that time.” She also described reports of Mother leaving G.J. unattended
- 12 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
that align with the trial court’s Finding of Fact 48(a)(vi). Mother testified that the
report was incorrect, but the social worker’s testimony provides clear evidence to
support the trial court’s finding.
The second social worker was involved with the family from July 2023 up to
the termination hearing. She described how Mother’s progress with her case plan
improved around June 2024 but stated that there were still concerns with Mother’s
lack of consistency. For example, Mother began regularly corresponding with DSS
over email towards the end of 2023 and has cooperated with random and scheduled
drug screens. However, Mother still refused some drug screens and tested positive
for cocaine and benzoylecgonine in February 2024. Additionally, there was
inconsistency with Mother’s employment, where Mother lived, and who lived with
her. Mother also had not attended any therapy from 2023 up until the termination
hearing, except for a single intake appointment one week before the hearing.
The third social worker was a placement supervisor who had been involved
with the family since September 2023. She testified that there were still concerns
with domestic violence regarding Mother and that Mother had not attended therapy
when urged to do so. When asked for her opinion on Mother’s progress on her case
plan, she responded:
She does not understand where the concern comes from. She does not -- she does not believe she did anything wrong. She does not believe she neglected her children. And so she has a hard time understanding why we’re continuing to want to see her do these things. In her mind, she’s
- 13 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
completed everything, and we continue to explain to her the circumstances surrounding why we’re concerned and why -- why we want her to do the things that we’re asking her to do. There are periods where she will make some progress, which, as the other workers have testified is easily surrounding court dates. We will typically see an uptick in her involvement. And then if the case is continued, then there’s that decrease.
She also stated that she did not believe that Mother had made enough progress on
her case plan for her to recommend reunification.
Thus, the testimony from the social workers supports both the trial court’s
description of specific events, such as the 8 December 2021 phone call and Mother
leaving G.J. unattended, as well as the more general findings that Mother has not
made sufficient progress in her case plan. Accordingly, these findings of fact are
conclusive. Further, these findings of fact support the conclusion of law that there
were grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights based on neglect. Over three
years into her case plan, Mother repeated her initial mistake of leaving her young
child unsupervised, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the harm of her
behavior and a likelihood that it will be repeated. Additionally, at the time of the
hearing, her social workers still had concerns of domestic violence which played a
significant role in the removal of Greg from her custody. Her inconsistency,
instability, and general lack of progress on her case plan also support the finding of
a likelihood of future neglect if the children were returned to her care.
Mother compares this case to In re Z.G.J. and contends that the trial court “did
- 14 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
not properly find a probability of neglect because the findings of fact only concerned
the events in the distant past, not recent history.” While it is true that the specific
events mentioned in the trial court’s findings are as distant from the termination
hearing as the evidence considered in In re Z.G.J., this case is still distinguishable.
In In re Z.G.J., the trial court exclusively considered evidence from the petition to
terminate parental rights. Whereas, here, the evidence of relevant distant events
was supplemented with testimony of Mother’s more recent progress on the case plan
and her social workers’ current assessment of whether reunification was appropriate.
The testimony from the social workers that, despite an uptick in progress, some of
the same concerns persisted and Mother had still not demonstrated consistent
stability or progress allowed the trial court to determine that, at the time of the
termination hearing, there was a likelihood of neglect if the children were returned
to Mother. That the trial court was considering Mother’s progress at the time of the
hearing is demonstrated by the present tense of its findings, for example, Mother “is
not cooperating with a plan of reunification.”
We do not read In re Z.G.J. as requiring a trial court to make findings about
specific events occurring between the filing of the petition to terminate parental
rights and the termination hearing. Rather, it requires that the trial court’s findings
and conclusions be supported by evidence of the parent’s fitness to care for the child
at the time of the hearing. See In re Z.G.J., 378 N.C. at 510. That requirement is
met here. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that there were
- 15 - IN RE: G.C., G.C.
grounds to terminate parental rights based on neglect. Since only one ground is
needed in order to terminate parental rights, we do not consider whether the trial
court erred in concluding that there were also grounds based on willfully leaving the
children in foster care and abandoning the children.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating
Mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Judges HAMPSON and FLOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
- 16 -