In re G.D.H.
This text of In re G.D.H. (In re G.D.H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021-NCSC-46
No. 351A20
Filed 23 April 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: G.D.H., J.X.W.
On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review an order entered
on 6 April 2020 by Judge V.A. Davidian III in District Court, Wake County. This
matter was calendared 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.
Mary Boyce Wells, Senior County Attorney, for petitioner-appellee Wake County Human Services.
Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Laura E. Dean, for appellee guardian ad litem.
Mary McCullers Reece for respondent-appellant mother.
PER CURIAM.
¶1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to her minor children G.D.H. (Glen)1 and J.X.W. (Jermaine).2 Counsel
for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude that the issues identified by
1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the juveniles and for ease of reading. 2 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of Glen and Jermaine’s father.
However, he is not a party to this appeal. IN RE G.D.H., J.X.W.
Opinion of the Court
counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless, and therefore we affirm the
trial court’s order.
¶2 On 4 October 2018, Wake County Human Services (WCHS) obtained nonsecure
custody of Glen, Jermaine, and their older sibling T.I.R. (Thomas)3. WCHS filed a
juvenile petition alleging that the children were neglected in that they did not receive
proper care, supervision, or discipline; they were not provided necessary medical care;
and they lived in an environment injurious to their welfare. The petition further
alleged that WCHS had an extensive history with respondent-mother and her nine
children dating back to 1995, having received twenty-seven Child Protective Services
(CPS) reports with concerns of respondent-mother’s chronic vagrancy, failure to
provide for her children’s basic needs, and improper discipline. WCHS received the
most recent CPS report on 26 July 2018. The report alleged that respondent-mother
had improperly disciplined Thomas by intentionally closing a car door on his leg and
hitting him on the head with a hammer. Respondent-mother’s actions raised concerns
about her mental health and her ability to care for the children. The petition also
alleged that WCHS continued to have serious concerns about respondent-mother’s
improper discipline, care, and supervision of the children; respondent-mother’s
unstable housing and income; the children’s missed medical appointments; the
children’s excessive absences from school; and the children’s poor hygiene. The
3 Thomas is not a subject of this appeal. IN RE G.D.H., J.X.W.
petition went on to allege that respondent-mother had arranged for the children to
live with relatives at various times while she attempted to obtain appropriate
housing. However, respondent-mother failed to obtain such appropriate housing even
when she had ample opportunities to do so; consequently, the relatives who had
provided care for the children were no longer either willing or able to continue to do
so. WCHS had also received reports of concerns about the commission of substance
abuse by respondent-mother.
¶3 On 2 May 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the children to be
neglected juveniles. The children remained in the custody of WCHS. The trial court
ordered respondent-mother to enter into and to comply with an Out of Home Family
Services Agreement with WCHS that included requirements for respondent-mother
to: (1) comply with recommendations of a substance abuse assessment, including
random drug screens; (2) complete a psychological evaluation and follow
recommendations; (3) engage in parenting education and demonstrate learned skills
in visits with the children and in her decision making; (4) maintain and provide
verification of lawful income sufficient to meet her needs and the needs of the
children; (5) obtain, maintain, and provide verification of suitable housing; (6) resolve
pending legal matters and refrain from further criminal activity; (7) establish, and
comply with, a visitation agreement; (8) maintain contact with WCHS and timely
notify WCHS of changes in circumstances. The trial court also authorized respondent- IN RE G.D.H., J.X.W.
mother to have supervised visitation with the children for a minimum of one hour per
week.
¶4 In a permanency planning order entered after a 12 June 2019 hearing, the trial
court set the primary permanent plan for the children as reunification with a
concurrent permanent plan of adoption. However, in a permanency planning order
entered after the next hearing, which was conducted on 23 September 2019, the trial
court changed the primary permanent plan for the juveniles to adoption with a
secondary plan of reunification upon finding that respondent-mother had not
cooperated with recommended services or made progress toward reunification.
Specifically, the trial court found that respondent-mother failed to follow through
with parenting classes and was dismissed from her parenting program; submitted to
substance abuse assessments but had not complied with recommended services or
requested drug screens; had not provided documentation of her reported employment;
failed to turn herself in for a probation violation, which resulted in her arrest; failed
to follow through with mental health assessments and appointments; had been
released from the DOSE program for domestic violence due to nonattendance; and
had fabricated the death of her mother as an excuse to miss a review meeting on 21
August 2019.
¶5 On 31 October 2019, WCHS filed a motion to terminate respondent-mother’s
parental rights to Glen and Jermaine for neglect and for willful failure to make IN RE G.D.H., J.X.W.
reasonable progress. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2) (2019). The termination motion
was heard on 19 February 2020 and 2 March 2020. In an order entered on 6 April
2020, the trial court determined that both grounds existed to terminate respondent-
mother’s parental rights as alleged in the motion. The trial court also concluded that
termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interests. Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondent-mother’s parental
rights to Glen and Jermaine. Respondent appealed.
¶6 Due to the incorrect identification contained in respondent-mother’s initial
notice of appeal of the court to which she was appealing and of the order from which
she was appealing, coupled with the untimeliness of her amended notice of appeal,
respondent-mother filed a petition for writ of certiorari on 3 September 2020. We
allowed respondent-mother’s petition for writ of certiorari on 5 October 2020 in order
to review the termination of parental rights order.
¶7 Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief on respondent-
mother’s behalf under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In the brief, counsel identified two issues that could arguably support an appeal but
also offered explanations for counsel’s belief that these issues lacked merit. Counsel
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In re G.D.H., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gdh-nc-2021.