IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021-NCSC-96
No. 449A20
Filed 27 August 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 6
August 2020 by Judge William F. Helms III in District Court, Union 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.
Perry, Bundy, Plyler & Long, LLP, by Ashley J. McBride, for petitioner- appellee Union County Division of Social Services.
No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant mother.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to J.E.H. (Jerry), J.I.H. (Jimmy), K.T.B. (Kenny), Q.D.B. (Quentin),
and I.T.B. (Iris).1 Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief under Rule
3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues
1 Pseudonyms used in this opinion to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of
reading. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
Opinion of the Court
identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless and therefore
affirm the trial court’s order.
¶2 On 19 June 2018, the Union County Division of Social Services (DSS) filed
juvenile petitions alleging that Jerry and Jimmy, who are twins, were neglected and
dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that on 17 June 2018, respondent-mother
took Jimmy to the emergency department and he was admitted to the hospital, where
he was diagnosed with failure to thrive. The petition noted that hospital employees
were concerned about respondent-mother’s ability to care for the twins. The petition
further noted earlier reports to DSS that respondent-mother received no prenatal
care while pregnant with the twins, who were born prematurely; she was diagnosed
with postpartum depression soon after their birth; and she did not have adequate
supplies such as diapers, formula, and clothing for the twins. The petition alleged
DSS supplied the children with formula and diapers, but respondent-mother
continued to fail to provide those items. Later juvenile petitions concerning the other
children noted that a social worker reportedly observed the children being fed
Carnation evaporated milk instead of formula.
¶3 On 18 June 2018, a Child and Family Team Meeting was held, and respondent-
mother indicated she was unable to care for the children.2 She consented to the
2 The narratives attached to the juvenile petitions for Jerry and Jimmy refer to the
neglect and dependent status of three other children of respondent-mother, none of whom are the subject of this appeal. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
children’s placement with family or in foster care. DSS obtained nonsecure custody
of Jerry and Jimmy on 19 June 2018. Following Jimmy’s discharge from the hospital,
he and Jerry were placed in a licensed foster home.
¶4 On 11 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into a case plan to facilitate
reunification with Jerry and Jimmy, which identified her needs in the areas of
employment, housing and basic needs, emotional and mental health, and parenting
and life skills. On 30 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into an In-Home Service
Agreement to address her needs as they related to her other children, Kenny,
Quentin, and Iris, who resided with their father.
¶5 Following a hearing on 22 August 2018, the trial court entered an order on 20
September 2018 that adjudicated Jerry and Jimmy as neglected and dependent
juveniles. Respondent-mother was allowed one hour of supervised visitation weekly.
She was ordered to (1) sign releases to allow her service providers to share
information with DSS and the guardian ad litem, (2) maintain monthly contact with
DSS, (3) submit to random drug screens, (4) complete a global mental health
assessment and comply with all recommendations, (5) complete parenting classes, (6)
secure safe and stable housing, and (7) maintain legal income.
¶6 On 18 October 2018, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging the neglect and
dependency of Kenny, Quentin, and Iris. The petitions alleged respondent-mother
had failed to address the needs identified in her In-Home Service Agreement, as the IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
children were not being provided necessary school uniforms and supplies;
respondent-mother lost her job and was still without housing; respondent-mother was
not scheduling medical and dental appointments for the children; respondent-mother
failed to attend her scheduled mental health sessions and parenting classes; and
respondent-mother was left unsupervised with Kenny and Quentin in violation of the
safety plan.
¶7 Following a hearing on 14 November 2018, the trial court entered an order on
18 December 2018 that adjudicated Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and
dependent juveniles. The court ordered that the children remain with their father in
the home of their paternal grandmother. Respondent-mother was allowed visitation
supervised by the children’s father or their paternal grandmother. She was required
to comply with her case plan and attend parenting classes; attend medication
appointments; transport Iris to school on time; and address the children’s well-being,
needs, and recommended services.
¶8 Before the adjudication order was entered, on 5 December 2018, DSS filed
additional juvenile petitions, again alleging that Kenny, Quentin, and Iris were
neglected and dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that during a home visit on
25 October 2018, a social worker observed a gun lying on the couch in the living room
where Kenny was playing. It was undetermined whether the gun was loaded, though
the owner of the gun asserted it was not. The petitions also noted a report to DSS on IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
3 December 2018 that indicated the children were often seen outside running across
the road with no parental supervision, respondent-mother was seen outside yelling
at and physically disciplining Iris, respondent-mother was at risk of being evicted
from her apartment due to complaints to management, and it was believed
respondent-mother was with the children unsupervised at the apartment. The
petitions also alleged respondent-mother remained noncompliant with her case plan
requirements, noting her failure to complete mental health treatment and parenting
classes and to schedule medical visits for the children. Further, when a social worker
arrived at the home to transport the family to a Child and Family Team Meeting, she
was refused entry to the home, the family did not attend the meeting, and neither
respondent-mother nor the children’s father contacted the social worker regarding
the missed meeting. DSS sought and obtained nonsecure custody of the children on 5
December 2018.
¶9 Following a hearing on 9 January 2019, the trial court entered an order on 21
February 2019, again adjudicating Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and
dependent juveniles. The court ordered custody of the children to remain with DSS.
Respondent-mother was allowed a minimum of one hour of supervised visitation a
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-96
No. 449A20
Filed 27 August 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 6
August 2020 by Judge William F. Helms III in District Court, Union 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.
Perry, Bundy, Plyler & Long, LLP, by Ashley J. McBride, for petitioner- appellee Union County Division of Social Services.
No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant mother.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to J.E.H. (Jerry), J.I.H. (Jimmy), K.T.B. (Kenny), Q.D.B. (Quentin),
and I.T.B. (Iris).1 Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief under Rule
3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues
1 Pseudonyms used in this opinion to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of
reading. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
Opinion of the Court
identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless and therefore
affirm the trial court’s order.
¶2 On 19 June 2018, the Union County Division of Social Services (DSS) filed
juvenile petitions alleging that Jerry and Jimmy, who are twins, were neglected and
dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that on 17 June 2018, respondent-mother
took Jimmy to the emergency department and he was admitted to the hospital, where
he was diagnosed with failure to thrive. The petition noted that hospital employees
were concerned about respondent-mother’s ability to care for the twins. The petition
further noted earlier reports to DSS that respondent-mother received no prenatal
care while pregnant with the twins, who were born prematurely; she was diagnosed
with postpartum depression soon after their birth; and she did not have adequate
supplies such as diapers, formula, and clothing for the twins. The petition alleged
DSS supplied the children with formula and diapers, but respondent-mother
continued to fail to provide those items. Later juvenile petitions concerning the other
children noted that a social worker reportedly observed the children being fed
Carnation evaporated milk instead of formula.
¶3 On 18 June 2018, a Child and Family Team Meeting was held, and respondent-
mother indicated she was unable to care for the children.2 She consented to the
2 The narratives attached to the juvenile petitions for Jerry and Jimmy refer to the
neglect and dependent status of three other children of respondent-mother, none of whom are the subject of this appeal. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
children’s placement with family or in foster care. DSS obtained nonsecure custody
of Jerry and Jimmy on 19 June 2018. Following Jimmy’s discharge from the hospital,
he and Jerry were placed in a licensed foster home.
¶4 On 11 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into a case plan to facilitate
reunification with Jerry and Jimmy, which identified her needs in the areas of
employment, housing and basic needs, emotional and mental health, and parenting
and life skills. On 30 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into an In-Home Service
Agreement to address her needs as they related to her other children, Kenny,
Quentin, and Iris, who resided with their father.
¶5 Following a hearing on 22 August 2018, the trial court entered an order on 20
September 2018 that adjudicated Jerry and Jimmy as neglected and dependent
juveniles. Respondent-mother was allowed one hour of supervised visitation weekly.
She was ordered to (1) sign releases to allow her service providers to share
information with DSS and the guardian ad litem, (2) maintain monthly contact with
DSS, (3) submit to random drug screens, (4) complete a global mental health
assessment and comply with all recommendations, (5) complete parenting classes, (6)
secure safe and stable housing, and (7) maintain legal income.
¶6 On 18 October 2018, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging the neglect and
dependency of Kenny, Quentin, and Iris. The petitions alleged respondent-mother
had failed to address the needs identified in her In-Home Service Agreement, as the IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
children were not being provided necessary school uniforms and supplies;
respondent-mother lost her job and was still without housing; respondent-mother was
not scheduling medical and dental appointments for the children; respondent-mother
failed to attend her scheduled mental health sessions and parenting classes; and
respondent-mother was left unsupervised with Kenny and Quentin in violation of the
safety plan.
¶7 Following a hearing on 14 November 2018, the trial court entered an order on
18 December 2018 that adjudicated Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and
dependent juveniles. The court ordered that the children remain with their father in
the home of their paternal grandmother. Respondent-mother was allowed visitation
supervised by the children’s father or their paternal grandmother. She was required
to comply with her case plan and attend parenting classes; attend medication
appointments; transport Iris to school on time; and address the children’s well-being,
needs, and recommended services.
¶8 Before the adjudication order was entered, on 5 December 2018, DSS filed
additional juvenile petitions, again alleging that Kenny, Quentin, and Iris were
neglected and dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that during a home visit on
25 October 2018, a social worker observed a gun lying on the couch in the living room
where Kenny was playing. It was undetermined whether the gun was loaded, though
the owner of the gun asserted it was not. The petitions also noted a report to DSS on IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
3 December 2018 that indicated the children were often seen outside running across
the road with no parental supervision, respondent-mother was seen outside yelling
at and physically disciplining Iris, respondent-mother was at risk of being evicted
from her apartment due to complaints to management, and it was believed
respondent-mother was with the children unsupervised at the apartment. The
petitions also alleged respondent-mother remained noncompliant with her case plan
requirements, noting her failure to complete mental health treatment and parenting
classes and to schedule medical visits for the children. Further, when a social worker
arrived at the home to transport the family to a Child and Family Team Meeting, she
was refused entry to the home, the family did not attend the meeting, and neither
respondent-mother nor the children’s father contacted the social worker regarding
the missed meeting. DSS sought and obtained nonsecure custody of the children on 5
December 2018.
¶9 Following a hearing on 9 January 2019, the trial court entered an order on 21
February 2019, again adjudicating Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and
dependent juveniles. The court ordered custody of the children to remain with DSS.
Respondent-mother was allowed a minimum of one hour of supervised visitation a
week, and she was ordered to comply with her case plan, sign releases with her
service providers, maintain monthly contact with DSS, and submit to random drug
screens. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
¶ 10 Following a permanency-planning hearing on 12 June 2019, the trial court
entered an order on 11 July 2019 setting the primary permanent plan for Jerry,
Jimmy, Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as adoption, with a secondary concurrent plan of
guardianship with a relative or court-approved caretaker. On 6 August 2019, DSS
filed a termination-of-parental-rights petition for all five children. The grounds
alleged to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights were (1) her neglect of each
of the children, (2) her leaving Jerry and Jimmy in foster care or a placement outside
the home for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to
correct the conditions that led to their removal, (3) her failure to pay a reasonable
portion of the cost of care for all five children in the preceding six months, and (4) her
inability to provide proper care and supervision of all the children rendering them
dependent juveniles. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3), (6) (2019).
¶ 11 Following a hearing on 1 and 2 July 2020, the trial court entered an order on
6 August 2020 adjudicating the existence of the grounds alleged in the termination
petition. The court also concluded that it was in the children’s best interests to
terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights and ordered that her rights in all five
children be terminated.3 Respondent-mother appeals.
¶ 12 Respondent-mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e)
3 The parental rights of the children’s fathers—known, putative, and unknown—were
also terminated. They are not parties to this appeal. IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In the brief, counsel identified certain issues
relating to the adjudication and disposition portions of the termination proceeding
that could arguably support an appeal, including whether the trial court properly
found grounds existed for the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights and
whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that termination of
respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, but
explained why he believed the issues lacked merit. Counsel also advised respondent-
mother of her right to file pro se written arguments on her own behalf and provided
her with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-mother, however, has not
submitted any written arguments to this Court.
¶ 13 This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit
brief filed pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) to see if the issues have potential merit. In re
L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). After careful review of the issues identified in the
no-merit brief in this matter in light of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied
that the 6 August 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-mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.