In re S.M.

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMay 6, 2014
Docket13-1241
StatusUnpublished

This text of In re S.M. (In re S.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re S.M., (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

NO. COA13-1241 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 May 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

S.M. Wake County No. 12 JT 45

Appeal by respondent father from order entered 28 June 2013

by Judge Margaret P. Eagles in Wake County District Court.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 April 2014.

Roger A. Askew for petitioner-appellee Wake County Human Services.

Windy H. Rose for respondent-appellant father.

Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Ty E. Shaffer, for guardian ad litem.

McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Respondent father appeals from the trial court’s order

terminating his parental rights to the juvenile S.M. Respondent

contends the trial court erred by concluding two grounds existed

to terminate his parental rights because he was never given the

opportunity to establish paternity or to provide support for the

juvenile. We affirm.

I. Background -2- The juvenile was born in November of 2011. On 10 February

2012, Wake County Human Services (“WCHS”) received a report

alleging that the juvenile’s mother had endangered the juvenile

and then threatened to harm herself. The same day, WCHS filed a

petition alleging that the juvenile was neglected and dependent

and took the juvenile into non-secure custody. The petition

identified four putative fathers.

On 17 April 2012, the trial court entered an adjudication

and disposition order, in which it found that paternity still

had not been established, and adjudicated the juvenile neglected

and dependent. As of a review hearing held 6 and 8 November

2012, WCHS still had not identified the juvenile’s father, and

sought to have putative father “A.O.” submit to genetic testing.

At that point, the trial court relieved WCHS of further efforts

toward reunification and changed the permanent plan to adoption.

In November of 2012, the mother contacted respondent

through a social networking website and informed him that

genetic testing had determined that A.O. was not the juvenile’s

father. Respondent, who was attending high school in Maryland

at the time, agreed to come back to North Carolina to take a

paternity test, which determined that he was the juvenile’s

father. After WCHS received the paternity test results, -3- respondent and his mother met with a social worker on 18 January

2013 and he entered into an out-of-home services agreement.

On 31 January 2013, WCHS filed a petition to terminate

respondent’s parental rights. As grounds for termination, WCHS

alleged: (1) respondent had failed to legitimate the juvenile

or establish paternity (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(5) (2013));

(2) respondent had neglected the juvenile (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-

1111(a)(1)); (3) respondent had left the juvenile in foster care

for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress

toward correcting the conditions that led to her removal from

the home (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2)); (4) the juvenile was

in WCHS custody, and respondent had failed to provide support

for a continuous period of six months prior to the filing of the

petition (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3)); and (5) respondent

had willfully abandoned the juvenile (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-

1111(a)(7)).

The mother relinquished her parental rights on 2 May 2013.

The adjudication phase of respondent’s termination hearing took

place on 14 May 2013. After hearing the testimony of a social

worker, respondent, and respondent’s mother, the trial court

concluded grounds existed to terminate respondent’s parental

rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) and (5). The -4- disposition hearing took place on 14 June 2013, and the trial

court concluded it was in the juvenile’s best interest to

terminate respondent’s parental rights. The trial court entered

its termination order on 28 June 2013. Respondent gave notice

of appeal.

II. Discussion

In his two arguments on appeal, respondent contends the

trial court erred by concluding that grounds existed to

terminate his parental rights. Respondent’s arguments are both

dependent on his assertion that he did not have sufficient time

to act, following his notification that he was the juvenile’s

father, to protect his parental rights. Respondent’s argument

is misplaced, in that his responsibility to establish paternity

did not begin when he received the results of the paternity

test. Thus, we disagree.

At the adjudicatory stage of a termination of parental

rights hearing, the burden is on the petitioner to prove by

clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that at least one ground

for termination exists. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(f) (2013); In

re Blackburn, 142 N.C. App. 607, 610, 543 S.E.2d 906, 908

(2001). Review in the appellate courts is limited to

determining whether clear and convincing evidence exists to -5- support the findings of fact and whether the findings of fact

support the conclusions of law. In re Huff, 140 N.C. App. 288,

291, 536 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2000), appeal dismissed, disc. review

denied, 353 N.C. 374, 547 S.E.2d 9 (2001).

“When the trial court is the trier of fact, the court is

empowered to assign weight to the evidence presented at the

trial as it deems appropriate.” In re Oghenekevebe, 123 N.C.

App. 434, 439, 473 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1996). “‘[F]indings of fact

made by the trial court . . . are conclusive on appeal if there

is evidence to support them.’” In re H.S.F., 182 N.C. App. 739,

742, 645 S.E.2d 383, 384 (2007) (citation omitted). “Where no

exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court, the

finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is

binding on appeal.” Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408

S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991).

Although the trial court concluded two grounds existed to

terminate respondent’s parental rights, we find it dispositive

that the evidence supports termination of his parental rights to

the juvenile pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(5), based

on his failure to establish paternity or legitimate the

juvenile. See In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533, 540, 577 -6- S.E.2d 421, 426 (2003) (a finding of one statutory ground is

sufficient to support the termination of parental rights).

A trial court may conclude grounds exist to terminate a

father’s parental rights to a child born out of wedlock if it

finds:

[He] has not, prior to the filing of a petition or motion to terminate parental rights, done any of the following:

a.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Matter of Scr
686 S.E.2d 676 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2009)
In Re Blackburn
543 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Matter of Huff
547 S.E.2d 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2001)
In Re Humphrey
577 S.E.2d 421 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Koufman v. Koufman
408 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1991)
In Re Huff
536 S.E.2d 838 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Matter of Oghenekevebe
473 S.E.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
A CHILD'S HOPE, LLC v. Doe
630 S.E.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
In re H.S.F.
645 S.E.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
In re M.A.I.B.K.
645 S.E.2d 881 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
In re T.L.B.
605 S.E.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
In re S.C.R.
679 S.E.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re S.M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sm-ncctapp-2014.