IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021-NCSC-157
No. 275A21
Filed 17 December 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on
21 April 2021 by Judge Angelica C. McIntyre in District Court, Robeson County. This
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 12 November 2021 but
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Sydney Batch for respondent-appellant father.
J. Edgar Yeager, Jr. for petitioner-appellee Robeson County Department of Social Services.
Carrie A. Hanger for appellee guardian ad litem.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent appeals from an order entered on 21 April 2021 by the District
Court, Robeson County, terminating his parental rights in his minor children
“Sarah,” “Victor,” “Leo,” “Ryder,” and “Colby.”1 After careful review, we affirm.
¶2 Respondent become involved with the Robeson County Department of Social
Services (DSS) due to reports that he was violent with the children’s mother in June
1 A pseudonym is used in this opinion to protect the juvenile’s identity and for ease of
reading. IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
Opinion of the Court
2012. In April 2014, he was arrested following a high-speed car chase. Two of
respondent’s children were in the vehicle when he was apprehended, and respondent
had been “drinking all day.” After conducting a hearing on 21 January 2015, the trial
court entered an order adjudicating the children to be neglected juveniles based on
both parents’ substance abuse issues and allegations of domestic violence. The
children were eventually returned to their mother’s custody. After a hearing on 6
February 2019, the children were again adjudicated to be neglected, again based on
substance abuse issues and allegations of domestic violence involving both parents.
¶3 Respondent entered into a case plan. Initially, he made significant progress,
and in June 2019, the children were returned to the care of respondent and their
mother on a trial basis. However, in September, the placement was disrupted after
DSS received a referral alleging ongoing substance abuse and domestic violence
issues involving both parents. On 21 May 2020, DSS filed a petition to terminate both
parents’ parental rights.
¶4 The trial court conducted a hearing on DSS’s termination petition on
18 February 2021. Respondent was not present. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate
respondent’s parental rights on the grounds of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1),
willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions which led to the
juveniles’ removal, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2), and willful failure to pay a reasonable IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
portion of the cost of caring for the juveniles, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3). The court
further concluded that it was in the best interests of all five juveniles to terminate
respondent’s parental rights. After the order terminating parental rights was
entered, respondent timely filed a notice of appeal.2
¶5 On appeal, counsel for respondent filed a no-merit brief on her client’s behalf
under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel
advised respondent 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 has not submitted written arguments to this Court.
¶6 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).
In this case, respondent’s counsel represented that after thoroughly reviewing the
record, she had determined that “there is no issue of merit on which to base an
argument for relief and that this appeal would be frivolous.”
¶7 The termination of parental rights is a two-stage process consisting of an
adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. See N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019).
If, during the adjudicatory stage, the trial court finds grounds to terminate parental
rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a), the trial court proceeds to the dispositional stage,
2 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the juveniles’ mother and an
unknown father. Neither the juveniles’ mother nor the unknown father timely filed a notice of appeal of the termination order, and thus they are not parties to this appeal. IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
where it is tasked with determining whether termination of parental rights is in the
best interests of the juvenile. See, e.g., In re E.S., 378 N.C. 8, 2021-NCSC-72, ¶ 11.
“We review a trial court’s adjudication of grounds to terminate parental rights to
determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing
evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838,
840 (2020) (cleaned up). “The trial court's assessment of a juvenile's best interests at
the dispositional stage is reviewed solely for abuse of discretion.” In re A.U.D., 373
N.C. 3, 6 (2019).
¶8 With regard to the trial court’s adjudicatory order, counsel for respondent
acknowledges that competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and
that these findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion of law that respondent
neglected the juveniles within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). A petitioner
may establish that grounds exist to terminate a respondent-parent’s parental rights
on the grounds of neglect in one of two ways. First, if the respondent-parent
maintained custody of the juvenile until near to the time that termination
proceedings were initiated, the petitioner must prove that the respondent-parent was
neglecting the juvenile as that term is defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15). See In re
R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838, n.3 (2020). Second, if the juvenile “has not been in the custody
of the parent for a significant period of time prior to the termination hearing,” the
petitioner must “make[ ] a showing of past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
by the parent.” In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 80 (2019) (cleaned up).
¶9 Here, the trial court order established that all five juveniles had previously
been adjudicated to be neglected juveniles. In the years following this adjudication,
respondent was again arrested for driving while intoxicated with his children in the
vehicle. In 2018 alone, he was charged with driving while intoxicated on four
occasions. Respondent was provided the opportunity to care for his children during a
“trial home placement” by order of the trial court on 27 June 2019. However, on
11 September 2019 DSS received a referral alleging ongoing substance abuse and
domestic violence issues involving both parents. Respondent admitted to DSS that he
was still smoking marijuana. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana and
gabapentin, an anticonvulsant prescription medication. This evidence supports the
trial court’s finding that there existed “a high likelihood that the neglect would
continue” if the children were returned to respondent’s care. The trial court’s findings
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-157
No. 275A21
Filed 17 December 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on
21 April 2021 by Judge Angelica C. McIntyre in District Court, Robeson County. This
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 12 November 2021 but
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Sydney Batch for respondent-appellant father.
J. Edgar Yeager, Jr. for petitioner-appellee Robeson County Department of Social Services.
Carrie A. Hanger for appellee guardian ad litem.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 Respondent appeals from an order entered on 21 April 2021 by the District
Court, Robeson County, terminating his parental rights in his minor children
“Sarah,” “Victor,” “Leo,” “Ryder,” and “Colby.”1 After careful review, we affirm.
¶2 Respondent become involved with the Robeson County Department of Social
Services (DSS) due to reports that he was violent with the children’s mother in June
1 A pseudonym is used in this opinion to protect the juvenile’s identity and for ease of
reading. IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
Opinion of the Court
2012. In April 2014, he was arrested following a high-speed car chase. Two of
respondent’s children were in the vehicle when he was apprehended, and respondent
had been “drinking all day.” After conducting a hearing on 21 January 2015, the trial
court entered an order adjudicating the children to be neglected juveniles based on
both parents’ substance abuse issues and allegations of domestic violence. The
children were eventually returned to their mother’s custody. After a hearing on 6
February 2019, the children were again adjudicated to be neglected, again based on
substance abuse issues and allegations of domestic violence involving both parents.
¶3 Respondent entered into a case plan. Initially, he made significant progress,
and in June 2019, the children were returned to the care of respondent and their
mother on a trial basis. However, in September, the placement was disrupted after
DSS received a referral alleging ongoing substance abuse and domestic violence
issues involving both parents. On 21 May 2020, DSS filed a petition to terminate both
parents’ parental rights.
¶4 The trial court conducted a hearing on DSS’s termination petition on
18 February 2021. Respondent was not present. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate
respondent’s parental rights on the grounds of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1),
willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions which led to the
juveniles’ removal, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2), and willful failure to pay a reasonable IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
portion of the cost of caring for the juveniles, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3). The court
further concluded that it was in the best interests of all five juveniles to terminate
respondent’s parental rights. After the order terminating parental rights was
entered, respondent timely filed a notice of appeal.2
¶5 On appeal, counsel for respondent filed a no-merit brief on her client’s behalf
under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel
advised respondent 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 has not submitted written arguments to this Court.
¶6 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).
In this case, respondent’s counsel represented that after thoroughly reviewing the
record, she had determined that “there is no issue of merit on which to base an
argument for relief and that this appeal would be frivolous.”
¶7 The termination of parental rights is a two-stage process consisting of an
adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. See N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019).
If, during the adjudicatory stage, the trial court finds grounds to terminate parental
rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a), the trial court proceeds to the dispositional stage,
2 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the juveniles’ mother and an
unknown father. Neither the juveniles’ mother nor the unknown father timely filed a notice of appeal of the termination order, and thus they are not parties to this appeal. IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
where it is tasked with determining whether termination of parental rights is in the
best interests of the juvenile. See, e.g., In re E.S., 378 N.C. 8, 2021-NCSC-72, ¶ 11.
“We review a trial court’s adjudication of grounds to terminate parental rights to
determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing
evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838,
840 (2020) (cleaned up). “The trial court's assessment of a juvenile's best interests at
the dispositional stage is reviewed solely for abuse of discretion.” In re A.U.D., 373
N.C. 3, 6 (2019).
¶8 With regard to the trial court’s adjudicatory order, counsel for respondent
acknowledges that competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and
that these findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion of law that respondent
neglected the juveniles within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). A petitioner
may establish that grounds exist to terminate a respondent-parent’s parental rights
on the grounds of neglect in one of two ways. First, if the respondent-parent
maintained custody of the juvenile until near to the time that termination
proceedings were initiated, the petitioner must prove that the respondent-parent was
neglecting the juvenile as that term is defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15). See In re
R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838, n.3 (2020). Second, if the juvenile “has not been in the custody
of the parent for a significant period of time prior to the termination hearing,” the
petitioner must “make[ ] a showing of past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
by the parent.” In re N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 80 (2019) (cleaned up).
¶9 Here, the trial court order established that all five juveniles had previously
been adjudicated to be neglected juveniles. In the years following this adjudication,
respondent was again arrested for driving while intoxicated with his children in the
vehicle. In 2018 alone, he was charged with driving while intoxicated on four
occasions. Respondent was provided the opportunity to care for his children during a
“trial home placement” by order of the trial court on 27 June 2019. However, on
11 September 2019 DSS received a referral alleging ongoing substance abuse and
domestic violence issues involving both parents. Respondent admitted to DSS that he
was still smoking marijuana. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana and
gabapentin, an anticonvulsant prescription medication. This evidence supports the
trial court’s finding that there existed “a high likelihood that the neglect would
continue” if the children were returned to respondent’s care. The trial court’s findings
regarding past neglect and the likelihood of future neglect are sufficient to support
its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights on the
basis of neglect.
¶ 10 “Because only one ground is needed to support termination,” In re A.L., 378
N.C. 396, 2021-NCSC-92, ¶ 15, we turn to our review of the trial court’s dispositional
findings and conclusions. At the dispositional stage of a termination proceeding, the
trial court is tasked with deciding “whether terminating the parent’s rights is in the IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
juvenile's best interest.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110. Subsection 7B-1110 further provides
that the trial court
shall consider the following criteria and make written findings regarding the following that are relevant:
(1) The age of the juvenile.
(2) The likelihood of adoption of the juvenile.
(3) Whether the termination of parental rights will aid in the accomplishment of the permanent plan for the juvenile.
(4) The bond between the juvenile and the parent.
(5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile and the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, custodian, or other permanent placement.
(6) Any relevant consideration.
Id.
¶ 11 With regard to the trial court’s dispositional order, counsel for respondent
acknowledges that the trial court addressed the criteria set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1110 and that, based on the trial court’s factual findings which are supported by
evidence in the record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
it was in the juveniles’ best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Here,
the trial court found that all five children were residing in appropriate placements
where they were bonded to their caretakers, that the likelihood the children would be
adopted was “extremely high,” that there was “no bond” between the children and IN RE S.J., V.J., L.J., R.J., C.J.
respondent, and that termination of respondent’s parental rights would “help achieve
the permanent plan [of adoption] for the minor children.” As counsel for respondent
acknowledges, these findings are supported by the record and address the criteria
provided under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110. Accordingly, we conclude that “the trial court's
decision on this matter was not so manifestly unsupported by reason as to constitute
an abuse of discretion.” In re E.S., 378 N.C. 8, 2021-NCSC-72, ¶ 24.
¶ 12 Having considered the entire record and the issues identified in the no-merit
brief, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.