In re: M.B.

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 25-315
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Judge Fred Gore

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA25-315

Filed 7 January 2026

Iredell County, No. 22JT000276-480

IN RE:

M.B.

A Juvenile.

Appeal by respondent-mother from order entered 15 October 2024 by Judge

Bryan A. Corbett in Iredell County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6

November 2025.

Lauren Vaughan for petitioner-appellee Iredell County Department of Social Services.

Brittany T. McKinney for Guardian ad Litem.

Peter Wood for respondent-appellant-mother.

GORE, Judge.

Respondent-mother appeals from an order entered 15 October 2024 by the

Iredell County District Court terminating her parental rights to her minor child, IN RE: M.B.

Opinion of the Court

Mary. 1 The trial court found grounds existed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3) and

concluded termination was in the child’s best interests. Respondent-mother

challenges only that dispositional determination. Jurisdiction lies in this Court

pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a)(7). After careful review, we affirm.

I.

Mary was born in November 2022 and tested positive for marijuana and

benzodiazepines, experiencing withdrawal symptoms. Respondent-mother admitted

drug use during pregnancy, and both parents had a history of substance abuse. On

5 December 2022, the Iredell County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a

petition alleging Mary was an abused and neglected juvenile, and the court placed

her in DSS custody. Following a 17 January 2023 hearing, the court adjudicated

Mary abused and neglected, ordered respondent-mother to complete substance-abuse

and mental-health evaluations, comply with recommendations, submit to random

drug screens, maintain sobriety, and granted her weekly supervised visitation.

At permanency-planning hearings in April, August, and November 2023, and

April 2024, the court found respondent-mother failed to engage in treatment or

submit to regular drug screens, noting in August 2023 that her “largest and most

important hurdle to reunification is substance abuse,” and in December 2023 that she

had made “no progress.” The court changed the permanent plan to adoption with a

1 A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the minor child.

-2- IN RE: M.B.

concurrent plan of reunification and reduced visitation to two hours monthly.

DSS filed a petition on 7 February 2024 to terminate respondent-mother’s

parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3). After continuances on 19 March,

3 April, and 16 July 2024, the adjudicatory hearing occurred 20 August 2024. By

order entered 13 September 2024, the court adjudicated all three grounds proven.

Following a dispositional hearing on 18 September 2024, the court concluded

termination was in Mary’s best interests and entered an order on 15 October 2024

terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. Respondent-mother timely

appealed.

II.

At the dispositional stage of a termination proceeding, the trial court

determines whether termination of parental rights is in the juvenile’s best interests.

That determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion—whether it is manifestly

unsupported by reason or arbitrary. In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 436 (2019).

Respondent-mother does not contest the existence of statutory grounds under

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a); she challenges only the conclusion that termination served

Mary’s best interests given their bond. Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a), the court must

consider the child’s age, likelihood of adoption, whether termination will aid the

permanent plan, the bond between parent and child, the relationship with the

prospective adoptive placement, and any other relevant factors. The weight assigned

to each factor lies within the court’s discretion. See In re R.G.L., 379 N.C. 452, 469

-3- IN RE: M.B.

(2021); In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 100–01 (2020); In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. at 437.

The court’s order reflects consideration of each factor. It found Mary was one

year old, had lived with her foster family since birth, and was “very adoptable at her

current age.” Her foster parents had a “strong desire to adopt,” provided a “safe and

suitable home,” and Mary was “very happy and interactive” in their care. The court

found Mary “extremely bonded” with her foster parents, who had “nurtured the

juvenile since coming into their care,” acknowledged “a connection” with respondent-

mother, but found “the only barrier to adoption is the parental rights of [respondent-

mother].”

The court’s findings demonstrate careful consideration of the dispositional

factors and a reasoned determination that termination best served Mary’s need for

permanence and stability.

III.

Because the trial court made findings supported by the record and reached a

reasoned decision, it did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of

respondent-mother’s parental rights was in Mary’s best interests.

AFFIRMED.

Judges ZACHARY and FREEMAN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-4-