In re: Z.G.

Opinions

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA25-476

Filed 18 March 2026

Caldwell County, No. 22JT000095-130

IN THE MATTER OF: Z.G.

Appeal by Respondent-Mother from order entered 18 February 2025 by Judge

Mark L. Killian in Caldwell County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20

February 2026.

Attorney Stephen M. Schoeberle, for the petitioner-appellee Caldwell County Department of Social Services.

McGuireWoods LLP, by Attorney Ami P. Patel, for the appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Reeves Divenere & Wright, by Attorney Anné C. Wright, for the respondentappellant mother.

STADING, Judge.

Respondent-Mother (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s order that

terminated her parental rights to her minor daughter, Z.G. (“Zora”),1 on the grounds

of neglect, willfully leaving her in foster care or placement outside the home for more

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of the minor children. N.C. R. App. P. 42(b) (“Appeals filed under N.C. [Gen. Stat.] § 7B-1001 . . . must use initials or a pseudonym instead of the minor’s name.”).

Opinion of the Court

than twelve months without making reasonable progress, and dependency. On

appeal, Mother maintains the trial court committed error by determining that her

parental rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–

(2), (6) (2023). She also maintains that several findings of fact are not supported by

clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. After careful consideration, we affirm the

trial court’s order.

I. Background

On 21 July 2022, the Caldwell County Department of Social Services (“DSS”)

filed a juvenile petition, alleging Mother had neglected Zora. The petition maintained

Mother failed to provide proper care, supervision or discipline; it also alleged Mother

created or allowed to be created “a living environment that is injurious to the

juvenile’s welfare.”

The petition alleged that since Zora’s birth, DSS had been intermittently

involved with Mother and Zora due to Mother’s ongoing substance abuse. On 24 May

2022, law enforcement found Mother unresponsive, sitting behind the wheel of her

car, while Zora was in the back seat. Officers found three prescription drugs in an

unmarked container in the vehicle. Mother did not have a prescription for any of the

medications. Officers also found a red straw, tin foil, and a plastic bag with residue

which tested positive for methamphetamines. Mother had failed sobriety tests and

was charged with misdemeanor child abuse, driving while impaired, driving while

license revoked, misdemeanor possession of a Schedule V controlled substance, and

-2-

misdemeanor possession marijuana paraphernalia. Between 24 May 2022 and the

filing of the petition, Mother had been “evasive, hostile, and uncooperative with [DSS]

to develop a plan to ensure the juvenile’s safety,” and she had not engaged in services

to correct the deficiencies which created the injurious environment.

The trial court entered an order granting nonsecure custody of Zora to DSS on

27 July 2022. After a hearing on 18 and 19 October 2022, the trial court entered an

order on 3 November 2022 adjudicating Zora neglected “due to [an] injurious

environment as a result of [Mother’s] substance use resulting in treatment by

emergency services while being the sole caregiver of the juvenile.” The trial court

entered a disposition order on the same day and approved Zora’s placement with her

paternal grandfather. The trial court ordered Mother to comply with her case plan

as follows: execute a consent for release of information form to allow DSS to exchange

and obtain information with all service providers; complete random, unannounced

drugs screenings as requested by DSS; participate in all visits with DSS when

requested and maintain contact; obtain and maintain safe and appropriate housing,

provide notification to DSS of any changes in residence; obtain a substance abuse

assessment and follow any and all recommendations; complete a parenting program;

and, obtain and maintain gainful and verifiable employment. The court authorized

Mother to have supervised visitation with Zora for one hour every week with a chance

for increased visitation upon completion of consecutive negative drug screens.

-3-

The trial court conducted five permanency planning hearings to evaluate

Mother’s progress between 2023 and 2024. The trial court held the first permanency

planning hearing in January 2023 and found that Mother submitted to one drug

screen but it “was heavily diluted.” Mother also missed multiple visits with Zora, and

the visits that she did attend “did not go well[.]” At this time, reunification was

established as the primary plan, with a secondary plan of adoption.

After the second permanency planning hearing in May 2023, the court found

that Mother was pursuing employment and participating in parenting classes.

However, Mother was not participating in mental health services. Mother also

missed two parenting classes and failed to submit to any drug screens. At this time,

the primary plan remained reunification, as did the secondary plan of adoption.

After the third permanency planning hearing in October 2023, the trial court

found that Mother had “made minimal effort to consistently address the issues that

brought the juvenile into custody of the Department and ha[d] not made any progress

with her case plan.” The primary and secondary plans remained unchanged.

The fourth permanency planning hearing was held in December 2023. In the

resulting order, the trial court found: DSS could not verify that Mother had attended

any substance abuse or mental health treatment, or had obtained employment;

Mother had not completed a parenting program; and Mother had been discharged

from RHA Health Services, a behavioral health program that addresses mental

health and substance abuse, due to noncompliance with attendance. The trial court

-4-

also found that although DSS had attempted to obtain a drug screen from Mother

five times, Mother failed to respond and comply. The primary plan changed to

adoption and the secondary plan changed to reunification.

After the last permanency planning hearing in March 2024, the trial court

found: Mother had made minimal efforts to consistently address the issues that

brought the juvenile into DSS’s custody and had not made any progress with her case

plan. The primary and secondary plans therefore remained the same.

On 24 May 2024, DSS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights, alleging

grounds existed for termination based on neglect, willful failure to make reasonable

progress, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2), (6). After a

hearing, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights in an order entered on

18 February 2025. At the adjudicatory stage, the trial court concluded that all three

of the alleged grounds were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. And

at the dispositional stage, the trial court concluded that termination was in Zora’s

best interests under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110 (2023). Mother timely appealed.

II. Analysis

Mother makes several challenges to the trial court’s findings of fact.2 She

asserts that a portion of Finding of Fact No. 16 is erroneous as a matter of law. She

2 Mother also challenges several findings rendered in support of the adjudication grounds of dependency and willful failure to make reasonable progress. However, since we conclude the trial court properly rendered findings in support of the ground of neglect, and that those findings support its conclusion, we decline to consider these additional challenges.

-5-

also asserts that portions of Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 18 are unsupported by clear,

cogent, and convincing evidence. Mother further challenges the trial court’s

adjudication of grounds to terminate her parental rights to Zora. To that end, she

maintains the trial court committed error because none of the three grounds it

concluded to have existed were supported by the findings of fact.

A. Standard of Review

“Our Juvenile Code provides for a two-step process for the termination of

parental rights—an adjudication stage and a dispositional stage.” In re R.D., 376

N.C. 244, 248, 852 S.E.2d 117, 122 (2020); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1109 and 7B-1110

(2023). “At the adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear,

cogent, and convincing evidence the existence of one or more grounds for termination

under section 7B-1111(a) of the North Carolina General Statutes.” In re Z.L.W., 372

N.C. 432, 434, 831 S.E.2d 62, 64 (2019) (cleaned up).

We review a trial court’s adjudication “to determine whether the findings are

supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and the findings support the

conclusions of law.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 406, 831 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2019). “A

trial court’s finding of fact that is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence

is deemed conclusive even if the record contains evidence that would support a

contrary finding.” In re R.G.L., 379 N.C. 452, 456, 866 S.E.2d 401, 408 (2021) (cleaned

up). Additionally, unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. Koufman v.

Koufman, 330 N.C. 96, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). “The trial court’s conclusions

-6-

of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.” In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19, 832 S.E.2d

692, 695 (2019). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and

freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court].” In re T.M.L., 377

N.C. 369, 375, 856 S.E.2d 787, 790 (2021) (cleaned up).

“[W]here the trial court finds multiple grounds on which to base a termination

of parental rights, and an appellate court determines there is at least one ground to

support a conclusion that parental rights should be terminated, it is unnecessary to

address the remaining grounds.” In re P.L.P., 173 N.C. App. 1, 8, 618 S.E.2d 241, 246

(2005) (cleaned up); In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 395, 831 S.E.2d 49, 53 (2019) (cleaned

up) (noting “an adjudication of any single ground in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) is

sufficient to support a termination of parental rights. Therefore, we need not address

respondent’s contention that the trial court erred in determining that grounds

likewise existed to support termination based on willful failure to pay child support.”).

B. Findings of Fact Nos. 16 & 18

Mother contends Finding of Fact No. 16 is erroneous as a matter of law because

the trial court made findings pertaining to current neglect, which is inapplicable with

respect to “termination of parental rights in the instant case.” Mother also asserts

portions of Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 183 are unsupported by clear, cogent, and

3 Mother appears to challenge Finding of Fact No. 19 in her brief. However, the substance of Mother’s challenge reveals this is a scrivener’s error, as in substance, her challenge is to the portions of Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 18 which state she was discharged from multiple facilities.

-7-

convincing evidence to the extent that they state Mother: failed to address her mental

health issues; failed to make any significant changes in pursuing treatment to

address her multiple health diagnoses; failed to comply with the recommendations of

her treatment providers; routinely failed drug screens; and was discharged from

multiple facilities due to noncompliance.

The relevant portions of Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 18 provide:

16. . . . The juvenile has been adjudicated as a neglected juvenile within the meaning of 7B-101(15) and such neglect by Respondent Mother continues as of the date of filing of this Motion. Specifically, Respondent mother has failed to address her mental health issues; she has failed to maintain suitable, stable, full-time employment, and has willfully failed to provide verification of any employment to the Department. Respondent mother willfully fails to complete drug screens as requested by the Department. She routinely fails to answer the phone when asked to screen, or she provides reasons that are found to be not true. Despite referrals made, Respondent mother has completed no parenting classes. She has failed to comply with the recommendations of treatment providers to receive mental health treatment, completing multiple “assessments” but unable to articulate the treatment she underwent. She has failed to comply with recommended treatment, being discharged from multiple facilities due to noncompliance. She has failed to participate in treatment services or complete the elements of her case plan as ordered by the Court. She has failed to make any significant changs in pursuing treatment to address her multiple mental health diagnoses. . . .

....

18. . . . Respondent mother is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile such that the juvenile is a neglected juvenile . . . and there is reasonable

-8-

probability that such incapability will continue for the foreseeable future. Such incapability is the result of Respondent mother’s diagnoses of Post—Traumatic Stress Disorder; Opioid Dependence, uncomplicated; and Cannabis Dependence Disorder. Respondent Mother has failed to address her mental health and substance issues or participate in ongoing treatment for such issues such that said issues remain untreated. The Department has largely been unable to ascertain the extent to which Respondent mother has treated her issues, if at all, due to lack of cooperation and communication. Respondent mother has not meaningfully completed any treatment program to address her substance use. Despite testifying that she has completed multiple “assessments”, Respondent mother is unable to articulate what substance use treatment she has participated in, if any. Respondent mother has also failed to meaningfully address her mental health as evidenced by her sporadic and minimal participation in therapy services referred to her by the Department. She has been discharged from more than one facility for lack of compliance. . . .

Mother maintains it was error for the trial court to find that Zora’s neglect

“continue[d] as of the date of the filing of th[e] Motion” because the finding was made

as “an attempt to find current neglect, which is not an applicable basis for termination

in the instant case.” She cites to In re B.R.L., in which the Court explained, “[i]n

some circumstances, the trial court may terminate a parent’s rights based on neglect

that is currently occurring at the time of the termination hearing.” 379 N.C. 15, 21,

863 S.E.2d 763, 769 (2021). “However, in other instances, the fact that a child has

not been in the custody of the parent for a significant period of time prior to the

termination hearing would make requiring the petitioner in such circumstances to

show that the child is currently neglected by the parent impossible.” Id.

-9-

Mother is correct that—similar to In re B.R.L.—since Zora had not been in her

care for over a year by the time of the hearing, the trial court’s finding of current

neglect is in error. See In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162, 167 (2016)

(“Termination of parental rights based upon this statutory ground requires a showing

of neglect at the time of the termination hearing or, if the child has been separated

from the parent for a long period of time, there must be a showing of past neglect and

a likelihood of future neglect by the parent.”). Yet it appears the trial court’s finding

was made in attempt to adhere to its mandate established by our common law: “When

determining whether such future neglect is likely, the district court must consider

evidence of changed circumstances occurring between the period of past neglect and

the time of the termination hearing.” In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838, 841, 851 S.E.2d 17,

20 (2020) (cleaned up). In any event, we disregard this challenged portion of Finding

of Fact No. 16, as it appears erroneous on its face and is immaterial to the trial court’s

conclusion of neglect. See In re N.G., 374 N.C. 891, 901, 845 S.E.2d 16, 24 (2020); see

also In re A.N.H., 381 N.C. 30, 42, 871 S.E.2d 792, 803 (2022).

Mother next challenges Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 18 to the extent that they

state she “failed to address her mental health issues,” “failed to comply with

recommended treatment,” and was “discharged from multiple facilities due to

noncompliance.” In so doing, she claims that “[t]here was no evidence . . . regarding

what treatment, if any, was recommended to [her] in regard to mental health.” She

- 10 -

also claims the evidence only showed she was discharged from one facility as opposed

to multiple.

At the termination hearing, Mother testified to seeing a therapist for mental

health treatment at Living Waters. Mother stated she stopped seeing the therapist

after a few months because the therapist kept recommending that she complete a

“detox program,” which Mother believed unnecessary. After four months, Mother was

discharged from Living Waters for noncompliance. Although Mother’s last

comprehensive clinical assessment yielded no recommendations, a DSS social worker

testified that Mother obtained this assessment on her own accord, without consulting

DSS; the social worker expressed concern over the accuracy of this assessment, as

Mother had refused to complete drug screens or communicate with DSS:

Q. When it comes to the grounds for the termination when it comes to neglect, what -- you discussed her mental health treatment as well and those also came back with no recommendations; is that correct?

A. On the last CCS that she completed?

Q. On that last CCA.

A. That recommendation did come back with no recommendations, but there was no conversation or no information shared with the provider at RHA with our concerns or to, you know, inform them of . . . the history that they may not have had. So it’s like she went down to talk to probation and self-reported. So if she self-reported then and denied substance or mental health, then more likely they have to go on there’s no recommendations because she’s denying it.

- 11 -

....

[A.] I am concerned that she did not maintain contact with the social worker or the Department to let them know that, okay, I’m going to go to RHA to have this assessment. And just the lack of communication, just, you know, the whole concern with, you know, not doing the drug screens. That is a valid concern that she’s not drug screening, that she is clean. And she has not had any treatment since Living Water to address these issues. So, yeah, that is a concern because she has a long-standing history of substance abuse and mental health.

And thereafter, the DSS social worker testified to meeting Mother in April 2024,

when Mother stated she was getting mental health and substance abuse treatment

at Carolina Wellness and Recovery. But when the social worker contacted the facility,

she was informed that Mother “was not a client there.” Finally, the record supports

a finding that Mother was discharged from both Living Waters and a facility called

RHA4 for non-attendance, evidenced by the social worker’s testimony and a prior

permanency planning order. Accordingly, we hold the challenged portions of these

findings are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re R.G.L., 379

N.C. at 456, 866 S.E.2d at 408.

Mother next challenges the portion of Finding of Fact No. 16 which states:

Mother “failed to comply with the recommendations of treatment providers to receive

mental health treatment, completing multiple assessments but unable to articulate

the treatment she underwent.” Mother insists—by pointing to one page of the

4 The record does not reveal the full name of this facility. It merely references it at as “RHA.”

- 12 -

transcript—that she was able to “articulate” and describe treatment in which she

participated at Living Waters. Yet in the portion of the transcript to which she directs

this Court, Mother only identifies an approximate timeline and a specific professional

with whom she “did some treatment” prior to discharge for lack of compliance after

four months. Additionally, Mother’s testimony at the hearing reveals that she could

not articulate the specific treatment she underwent at RHA:

Q. . . . You mentioned probably doing an assessment with RHA for substance use?

A. Three of them.

....

Q. Okay. If so you were just doing assessments [at RHA], you’re not really explaining -- what kind of treatment have you participated in aside from assessing what treatment you need?

A. The mental health.

Q. For substance abuse specifically, what kind of treatment have you participated in that’s not therapy?

A. I mean me and Ms. Hernandez would speak about what caused the drug issues. Drugs were talked by -- addiction was talked about in those therapy. That has a lot -- the drug had a lot to do with things that I had been through -- the mental.

And as noted in the preceding paragraph, a DSS social worker testified that while

meeting with Mother in April 2024, Mother reported receiving treatment from

Carolina Wellness and Recovery. But when the social worker contacted the facility,

they had no record of Mother’s existence as a client. We thus overrule Mother’s

- 13 -

argument on this basis, as it is unmeritorious. See In re R.D., 376 N.C. 244, 258, 852

S.E.2d 117, 129 (2020) (cleaned up) (noting “findings of fact are binding where there

is some evidence to support those findings, even though the evidence might sustain

findings to the contrary”).

Finally, Mother contends the portions of Findings of Fact Nos. 16 and 18 which

state that she “fail[ed] to complete drug screens as requested” should be disregarded

because she completed some drug screens. Although Mother completed some drug

screens, the record demonstrates that Mother only complied with five drug screen

requests out of forty-four. Mother further argues, with respect to the drug screens

that she missed, she had to care for her sick mother who was at the hospital. But at

the termination hearing, Mother testified that those doctor appointments only

impeded her from complying with “one or two” drug screens. Otherwise, Mother

testified to missing appointments as a result of “transportation issues” and not being

home. Additionally, a social worker with DSS testified that Mother often failed to

respond to texts or phone calls requesting drug screens. Regardless of Mother’s

alleged reasons for missing drug screens, these portions of the trial court’s findings

are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re R.G.L., 379 N.C. at

456, 866 S.E.2d at 408; In re R.D., 376 N.C. at 258, 852 S.E.2d at 129.

For the above reasons, the trial court erred by rendering a finding pertaining

to Mother’s current neglect of Zora; we therefore disregard only that portion of

- 14 -

Finding of Fact No. 16. Otherwise, the remaining contested portions of Findings of

Fact Nos. 16 and 18 are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

C. Neglect

Mother next asserts the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights

based on the ground of neglect. She maintains the trial court “made several findings

of fact in regard to neglect, none of which are sufficient support for [its] conclusion

that grounds had been proven by clear and convincing evidence that there was a high

probability that [M]other would neglect Zora again if returned to her care.”

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111 provides the grounds upon which a trial court may

terminate a parent’s parental rights. Relevant here, under subsection 7B-1111(a)(1),

“parental rights may be terminated if the trial court finds the parent has neglected

his or her child such that the child is a neglected juvenile within the meaning of

section 7B-101 of the North Carolina General Statutes.” In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88,

95, 839 S.E.2d 792, 797 (2020) (cleaned up). A neglected juvenile is defined under

Chapter 7B as “any juvenile less than 18 years of age . . . whose parent, guardian,

custodian, or caretaker does any of the following”:

a. Does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline.

b. Has abandoned the juvenile, except where that juvenile is a safely surrendered infant as defined in this Subchapter.

c. Has not provided or arranged for the provision of necessary medical or remedial care.

- 15 -

d. Or whose parent, guardian, or custodian has refused to follow the recommendations of the Juvenile and Family Team made pursuant to Article 27A of this Chapter.

e. Creates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.

f. Has participated or attempted to participate in the unlawful transfer of custody of the juvenile under G.S.14- 321.2.

g. Has placed the juvenile for care or adoption in violation of law.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15)(a)–(g) (2023) (citation modified).

Ordinarily, “termination of parental rights based upon this statutory ground

requires a showing of neglect at the time of the termination hearing.” In re M.B., 382

N.C. 82, 86, 876 S.E.2d 260, 264 (2022) (citation modified). But “in instances where

the child has been separated from the parent for a long period of time, there must be

a showing of a likelihood of future neglect by the parent.” Id. (cleaned up); In re

D.L.W., 368 N.C. at 843, 788 S.E.2d at 167 (“Termination of parental rights based

upon this statutory ground requires a showing of neglect at the time of the

termination hearing or, if the child has been separated from the parent for a long

period of time, there must be a showing of past neglect and a likelihood of future

neglect by the parent.”). That is, “a trial court may terminate parental rights based

upon prior neglect of the juvenile if the trial court finds by clear and convincing

evidence a probability of repetition of neglect if the juvenile were returned to [his or]

her parents.” In re M.B., 382 N.C. at 86, 876 S.E.2d at 264.

- 16 -

“When determining whether such future neglect is likely, the district court

must consider evidence of changed circumstances occurring between the period of

past neglect and the time of the termination hearing.” In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. at 841,

851 S.E.2d at 20 (cleaned up). “Likewise, a trial court may consider whether the

parent has made any meaningful progress in eliminating the conditions that led to

the removal of the children. When these factors evidence a likelihood of repetition of

neglect, the trial court may reach a conclusion of neglect under [N.C.G.S.] § 7B-

1111(a)(1).” In re M.B., 382 N.C. at 86, 876 S.E.2d at 265 (cleaned up). That said,

these are only factors within the trial court’s ultimate determination of a likelihood of future neglect; noting the factors alone does not amount to making the determination itself. After noting these factors, the trial court must then distinctly determine a parent’s likelihood of neglecting a child in the future. When the trial court fails to distinctly determine that there is a likelihood of future neglect, “the ground of neglect is unsupported by necessary findings of fact.” In re E.L.E., 243 N.C. App. at 308. Even when “competent evidence in the record exists to support such a finding, . . . the absence of this necessary finding [still] requires reversal.” Id.

Id. at 86–87, 876 S.E.2d at 265 (cleaned up).

Here, the trial court concluded grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental

rights for neglect based on its determination that Zora was previously adjudicated a

neglected juvenile, and there was a strong possibility that such neglect would be

repeated in the future if Zora was returned to Mother’s care. The trial court

ultimately found that Mother would likely neglect Zora in the future given that she

- 17 -

failed to make reasonable progress to her plan between the period of past neglect and

the time of the termination hearing:

11. On October 19, 2022, the juvenile was adjudicated to be neglected juvenile pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15). [Mother] appeared at the Adjudication hearing.

12. On October 19, 2022 the Disposition Order was entered. [Mother] was directed to undertake certain tasks which would assist her in meeting the needs of the juvenile for a safe and appropriate home.

13. [DSS] prepared an Out-of-Home Family Services Agreement for [Mother] and she originally agreed to the terms of this case plan on August 30, 2022. An updated case plan was entered into on March 30, 2023. Some of the activities included on her case plan are as follows: address her substance use and mental health issues; maintain appropriate housing, transportation, and employment; and comply and submit to random urine and hair follicle drug screens.

14. [Mother’s] activities were also ordered by the court.

15. [Mother’s] employment and living situations are currently unknown to [DSS]. When living in [the first location], [Mother] reported to do “private care”, cleaning homes and providing caretaker services to people in her neighborhood. [Mother] never provided verifiable proof of income or employment to [DSS] and was unable to provide the names of clients. [Mother] testified that she would be starting a job at [a snack business] . . . but has yet to do so. Since moving to [a second location], [DSS] has been unable to access [Mother’s] home. She reports that you have to call or honk the horn so that she knows to come out and open the gate; however, [DSS] has made multiple attempts to visit the home, none of which have been successful.

16. Grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of [Mother] pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). The juvenile has been adjudicated as a neglected juvenile

- 18 -

within the meaning of [§] 7B-101(15) . . . . Specifically, [Mother] has failed to address her mental health issues; . . . . [Mother] willfully fails to complete drug screens as requested by [DSS]. She routinely fails to answer the phone when asked to screen, or she provides reasons that are found to be not true. Despite referrals made, [Mother] has completed no parenting classes. She has failed to comply with the recommendations of treatment providers to receive mental health treatment, completing multiple “assessments” but unable to articulate the treatment she underwent. She has failed to comply with recommended treatment, being discharged from multiple facilities due to noncompliance. She has failed to participate in treatment services or complete the elements of her case plan as ordered by the Court. She has failed to make any significant changes in pursuing treatment to address her multiple mental health diagnoses. The probability that such neglect will be repeated in the future is high due to [Mother] failing to address the issues which caused the juvenile to come into the custody of [DSS].

....

19. [Mother] is not making adequate progress within a reasonable period of time under the plan.

20. [Mother] is not actively participating in or cooperating with the plan, the Department, and the Guardian ad Litem for the juvenile.

21. [Mother] does not remain available to the court, the Department, and the Guardian ad Litem for the juvenile.

22. [Mother] is acting in a manner inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile.

23. [Mother] is unfit and has acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected status as a parent.

After making specific findings pertaining to the relevant factors, the trial court

distinctly determined Mother’s likelihood of neglecting Zora in the future. See id. at

- 19 -

86, 876 S.E.2d at 265 (“After noting these factors, the trial court must then distinctly

determine a parent’s likelihood of neglecting a child in the future.”). And we have

already addressed the sufficiency of these Findings in section A of this opinion. In re

R.G.L., 379 N.C. at 456, 866 S.E.2d at 408; Koufman, 330 N.C. at 97, 408 S.E.2d at

731.

Mother asserts these findings are insufficient to support the trial court’s

conclusion that there was a high probability of repeated future neglect. See, e.g., In

re W.K., 379 N.C. 331, 343, 864 S.E.2d 313, 321 (2021) (“The trial court’s

determination that there existed a high probability of future neglect by respondent is

more properly classified a conclusion of law . . . .”). Citing to In re Z.D., 258 N.C. App.

441, 450–51, 812 S.E.2d 668, 675 (2018), Mother argues: “The fact that [she] had been

diagnosed with a mental illness, without further findings of fact regarding how, if at

all, they impaired her ability to parent, is not sufficient support for termination of

her parental rights.”

With respect to mental health conditions, “behavior emanating from a parent’s

mental health conditions may supply grounds for terminating parental rights only

upon an analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances, such as the severity of the

parent’s condition and the extent to which the parent’s behavior is consistent with

recognizable symptoms of an illness.” In re A.L.L., 376 N.C. 99, 100, 852 S.E.2d 1, 3

(2020) (cleaned up). In In re Z.D., the trial court terminated the respondent-mother’s

parental rights based on neglect where she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder

- 20 -

and had “multiple episodes related to her mental illness.” 258 N.C. App. at 450, 812

S.E.2d at 674–75. The trial court found that the parent’s behavior during her visits

“was consistently concerning” and “disturbing,” ultimately finding that she was

“unable to provide proper care for [her son].” Id. at 450, 812 S.E.2d at 675.

On appeal, a prior panel of this Court held those findings were insufficient to

support a conclusion of neglect. Id. at 448, 812 S.E.2d at 674. The Court explained,

the terms “concerning” and “disturbing” were deficiently subjective. Id. at 450, 812

S.E.2d at 675. Thus, the findings were “not sufficiently specific to determine what

behavior [she] was exhibiting and how that behavior negatively impacted her son.”

Id. However, in the instant case, the trial court’s findings were not ambiguous as to

how Mother’s mental health diagnosis, and her failure to address them, impacted the

likelihood of repetition of neglect if Zora was returned to her care. Cf. id. And even

if we were to assume that Mother’s argument is correct, her contention fails to the

consider the fact that, unlike In re Z.D., the trial court rendered a battery of

additional findings in support of its conclusion of future neglect. Cf. id. Whereas in

In re Z.D., the respondent had completed a significant portion of her case plan, and

“the trial court based its termination of [the] [r]espondent’s parental rights primarily

on the issue of her mental health.” Id. at 447, 812 S.E.2d at 673.

Mother further contends the fact that she failed to maintain suitable

employment is not indicative or sufficient to support a conclusion of a likelihood of

future neglect, citing to In re Nesbitt, 147 N.C. App. 349, 359, 555 S.E.2d 659, 665–

- 21 -

66 (2001). Yet In re Nesbitt did not concern the adjudication ground of neglect;

instead, it dealt with the adjudication ground pursuant to subsection 7B-1111(a)(2)—

that Mother willfully left the juvenile in foster care or placement outside the home

for more than twelve months without showing to the satisfaction of the trial court

that reasonable progress under the circumstances were made. Cf. id. at 351, 555

S.E.2d at 661. Unlike the matter sub judice, the In re Nesbitt Court found that the

respondent parent was “extremely cooperative” with DSS and had made substantial

progress on her case plan, including: securing a new home; maintaining a new home

for almost a year; timely paying rent; timely making child support payments;

maintaining employment; completing required parenting classes; completing mental

health therapy; and regularly visiting the minor child. Id. at 358–60, 555 S.E.2d at

665–66. The Court noted that the evidence at bar was insufficient to demonstrate

that the respondent parent’s failure to make progress on her case plan was willful—

a component not relevant for adjudication under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1). See

id. at 360, 555 S.E.2d at 666 (“Even, assuming arguendo, that the court’s finding of

failure to make reasonable progress was supported by clear, cogent and convincing

evidence, in order to uphold the trial court’s order, we must find that Ms. Nesbitt’s

failure was willful.”). Mother’s reliance on Nesbitt is misplaced.

Mother next asserts that missed drug screens and substance abuse, standing

alone, are insufficient to support the adjudication ground of neglect. In re D.T.N.A.,

250 N.C. App. 582, 585–86, 801 S.E.2d 642, 645 (2016) (cleaned up) (“A mere showing

- 22 -

that a parent has abused alcohol or drugs is insufficient to terminate parental rights.

We can find no evidence to indicate that respondent’s alleged drug or substance abuse

would prevent him from providing for the proper care and supervision of Danny.”).

Mother maintains, pursuant to In re A.N.H., that the trial court failed to render

findings showing that her failure to adequately address her substance abuse caused

physical, mental or emotional impairment to Zora. 381 N.C. 30, 47, 871 S.E.2d 792,

806 (2022) (cleaned up) (“There are no findings to support the conclusion that

respondent’s drug use will result in some physical, mental, or emotional impairment

of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment . . . .”).

Mother is correct insofar as when adjudicating a juvenile on the basis of

neglect, “our courts have additionally required that there be some physical, mental,

or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment as

a consequence of the failure to provide proper care, supervision, or discipline.” In re

Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 283, 582 S.E.2d 255, 258 (2003) (quoting In re Safriet, 112

N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901–02 (1993)) (cleaned up); see also In re A.N.H.,

381 N.C. at 47, 871 S.E.2d at 806 (2022) (applying the logic of In re Stumbo, which

dealt with a juvenile abuse/neglect/dependency petition, to the adjudication stage of

a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also In re K.B., 378 N.C. 601, 609,

862 S.E.2d 663, 671 (2021) (cleaned up) (“As noted above, to establish neglect, the

conditions at issue must result in some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of

the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment . . . . Here, the trial court made

- 23 -

express findings that [the juveniles] were impaired or at a substantial risk of

impairment as a result of respondent mother’s neglect.”).

That said, precedent establishes that the failure to expressly render such a

finding is not fatal where the evidence can be inferred to support it. See In re Safriet,

112 N.C. App. at 753, 436 S.E.2d at 902 (“Although the trial court failed to make any

findings of fact concerning the detrimental effect of Ms. Safriet’s improper care on

Daniel’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being, all the evidence supports such a

finding.”); see also In re Padgett, 156 N.C. App. 644, 648, 577 S.E.2d 337, 340 (2003)

(“Where there is no finding that the juvenile has been impaired or is at substantial

risk of impairment, there is no error if all the evidence supports such a finding.”); see

also In re C.C., 260 N.C. App. 182, 185, 817 S.E.2d 894, 897 (2018) (“However, even

where the trial court makes no finding that a juvenile has been impaired or is at

substantial risk of impairment there is no error if the evidence would support such a

finding.”).

As in In re Safriet, we hold that the record evidence supports such a finding.

112 N.C. App. at 753, 436 S.E.2d at 902. It is undisputed that Mother’s substance

use had previously impacted Zora’s physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing;

indeed, unchallenged Finding of Fact No. 10 notes the reasoning for the original

adjudication was due to the fact that Mother was “unconscious, sitting behind the

wheel of her vehicle while it was running” with Zora in the back seat. Further,

Finding of Fact No. 18 notes that Mother: “failed to provide any meaningful support

- 24 -

or basic necessities for the juvenile during the period since the juvenile came into the

custody of the Department”; and “lack[ed] an understanding of how her choices and

actions impact[ed] the juvenile.” And with respect to emotional wellbeing in

particular, the GAL’s report, prepared in advance of the termination hearing, noted

that Zora had been unable to develop a consistent maternal bond with Mother in light

of Mother’s “lack of engagement and inconsistency with her case plan goals[.]” The

DSS report similarly provided: “Due to the time being out of care, there is not a strong

bond” between Mother and Zora. Finally, at the termination hearing, a DSS social

worker testified to the fact that Mother’s inaction toward her case plan in the six

months leading up to the filing of the termination petition underscored that Mother

was unable to provide proper care or supervision of Zora. The evidence therefore

demonstrates that Mother’s inactions—including failing to address substance abuse,

complete drug screens, complete parenting classes, comply with the

recommendations of treatment providers, participate in treatment services, maintain

a stable home, and maintain a stable job—had a physical, mental, and emotional

impact on Zora.

We also note that In re A.N.H. is distinguishable, as the respondent in that

case had completed the vast majority of his case plan outside of testing positive for

drugs. Cf. In re A.N.H., 381 N.C. at 47, 871 S.E.2d at 806. Moreover, the A.N.H.

Court’s holding did not rise and fall on the trial court’s failure to make such a finding

- 25 -

of impairment; instead, emphasizing that the respondent’s positive drug screens—

standing alone—“says very little about his ability to parent his daughter”:

To be sure, respondent’s substance abuse was recognized as a concern from the initiation of the case, and he was required to address it as part of his case plan. Respondent completed twenty hours of basic substance abuse treatment (four hours more than required by the assessment), but he also continued to test positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and cocaine on occasion after completing that treatment, and he denied using methamphetamine or any other drug at the termination hearing despite those positive test results. Respondent’s denial of drug use despite the positive drug screens is some support for the trial court’s finding that he failed to completely address his substance abuse issues. But given the trial court’s other findings of fact that are supported by the evidence, this says very little about his ability to parent his daughter. There are no findings to support the conclusion that respondent’s drug use will result in “some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment . . . .” In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 283, 582 S.E.2d 255 (2003); cf. In re K.B., 378 N.C. 601, 2021-NCSC- 108, ¶ 22, 862 S.E.2d 663 (affirming termination order on ground of neglect where “the trial court made express findings that [the juveniles] were impaired or at a substantial risk of impairment as a result of respondent mother’s neglect”). Thus, disregarding the trial court’s findings that were not supported by evidence in the record, the trial court’s conclusion that Annie would likely be neglected if returned to her father’s care is not supported by the remaining findings of fact. As a result, the trial court’s order adjudicating neglect as a ground for termination of respondent’s parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B- 1111(a)(1) must be vacated.

Id. at 46–47, 871 S.E.2d at 806 (citation modified). The Court ultimately held,

“disregarding the trial court’s findings that were not supported by evidence in the

- 26 -

record, the trial court’s conclusion that Annie would likely be neglected if returned to

her father’s care is not supported by the remaining findings of fact.” Id.

Moreover, in In re G.C.—a case decided after In re A.N.H.—the Supreme Court

of North Carolina noted that there is no requirement to render a written finding of

impairment when adjudicating a juvenile on the basis of neglect:

This assessment remains useful and remains the law— there must “be some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide ‘proper care, supervision, or discipline.’” In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 9 (quoting In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283). However, to be clear, there is no requirement of a specific written finding of a substantial risk of impairment. As raised by DSS, a substantial risk of impairment is not contained in the statutory definition of neglect. See N.C.G.S. § 7B- 101(15). Rather, the trial court must make written findings of fact sufficient to support its conclusion of law of neglect. And in this matter, the trial court’s written findings of fact support its conclusion that Glenda is a neglected juvenile.

In re G.C., 384 N.C. 62, 69, 884 S.E.2d 658, 663 (2023).

We acknowledge that In re G.C. dealt with an adjudication under Article 4 of

Chapter 7B while In re A.N.H. dealt with the termination of parental rights under

Article 11 of Chapter 7B. Compare In re G.C., 384 N.C. at 63, 884 S.E.2d at 659, with

In re A.N.H., 381 N.C. at 34, 871 S.E.2d at 798–99; Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-

400 et seq., with id. § 7B-1100 et seq. However, termination cases like In re K.B. and

In re A.N.H. have applied the logic of In re Stumbo and In re Safriet to termination

of parental rights proceedings—that there be a showing of impairment to terminate

- 27 -

parental rights on the basis of neglect. See In re K.B., 378 N.C. at 607, 862 S.E.2d at

670 (quoting In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283, 582 S.E.2d at 258) (“The conditions at

issue must result in ‘some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile

or a substantial risk of such impairment . . . .’”); see also In re A.N.H., 381 N.C. at 47,

871 S.E.2d at 806 (quoting In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283, 582 S.E.2d at 258) (“There

are no findings to support the conclusion that respondent’s drug use will result in

‘some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk

of such impairment . . . .’”). For all these reasons, Mother’s argument is overruled.

Having addressed Mother’s contentions, our review of the trial court’s findings

leads us to hold that they support the trial court’s conclusion of law—that Mother is

likely to neglect Zora in the future. In re M.B., 382 N.C. at 86, 876 S.E.2d at 264.

The findings establish that between the original adjudication and the time of the

termination proceeding, Mother: failed to complete a substantial amount of drug

screens; routinely failed to answer the phone or provided false reasons when asked to

provide a drug screen; failed to complete any parenting classes;5 failed to comply with

the recommendations of treatment providers to receive mental health treatment;

failed to participate in treatment services; and failed to make any significant changes

5 Mother also contends that her failure to complete parenting classes is not indicative, or compelling

evidence, of future neglect. Even if we assume the failure to complete parenting classes, standing alone, is insufficient, the trial court’s conclusion in the instant case is supported by several additional findings, including: failing to address substance abuse; failing to complete drug screens; failing to comply with the recommendations of treatment providers; failing to participate in treatment services; failing to maintain a stable home; and failing to maintain a stable job. Accordingly, Mother’s contention is meritless.

- 28 -

in pursuing treatment to address her multiple mental health diagnoses. In re R.L.D.,

375 N.C. at 841, 851 S.E.2d at 20. The findings also show that by the time of the

termination proceeding, Mother’s employment and living situations were unknown

to DSS; Mother never provided verifiable proof of income or employment to DSS; and

that DSS had made multiple attempts to visit Mother’s home, none of which were

successful. See id.

Viewed together, the findings demonstrate that: Zora was previously

adjudicated neglected in the past; and, based on Mother’s failure to make progress to

the vast majority of her case plan between the original adjudication and the time of

the termination proceeding, that Zora will likely be neglected by Mother in the future.

In re M.B., 382 N.C. at 86, 876 S.E.2d at 264; see also In re M.A., 374 N.C. 865, 870,

844 S.E.2d 916, 921 (2020) (“A parent’s failure to make progress in completing a case

plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect.”). Additionally, although the trial

court failed to render an express finding, the evidence demonstrates that Mother’s

actions had a detrimental effect on Zora’s mental, physical, and emotional wellbeing.

In re Safriet, 112 N.C. App. at 753, 436 S.E.2d at 902. Since we have determined the

trial court’s order may be upheld on the ground of neglect, we decline to extend our

review further. See, e.g., In re C.K.I., 379 N.C. at 210, 864 S.E.2d at 326 (“Because a

single ground for terminating parental rights is sufficient to support a termination

order, this Court can uphold the trial court’s order based on one ground without

reviewing any remaining ground.”).

- 29 -

III. Conclusion

The trial court committed error by rendering a finding concerning current

neglect; otherwise, the challenged findings are supported by clear, cogent, and

convincing evidence. Notwithstanding this error, the trial court’s conclusion of law—

that grounds exist to terminate Mother’s parental rights based on neglect pursuant

to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1)—is supported by its findings of fact. See, e.g., In

re M.Y.P., 378 N.C. 667, 676, 862 S.E.2d 773, 780 (2021) (“Regardless of our

conclusion that the above findings of fact are unsupported, such error is harmless as

the remaining findings in the trial court’s order still support its conclusion that

respondent’s rights were subject to termination based on neglect.”). Since the trial

court did not err in adjudicating grounds for termination, and Mother does not

challenge the trial court’s best interests determination at the disposition stage of the

proceedings, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights. See,

e.g., In re C.K.I., 379 N.C. at 210, 864 S.E.2d at 326.

AFFIRMED.

Judges COLLINS and CARPENTER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 30 -