Case Title: In re D.M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 473A20

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-95 
No. 473A20 
Filed 27 August 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF: D.M. & A.H. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (a2) from orders entered on 
26 August 2019 and 5 August 2020 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare 
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. 
 
No brief for petitioner-appellee Dare County Department of Health & Human 
Services, Division of Social Services. 
 
No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Garron T. Michael for respondent-appellant father. 
 
 
EARLS, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondent-father appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his 
parental rights in the minor children “David” and “Allison.”1 See N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1001(a1)(1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2) and (a2), respondent-
father also appeals from the permanency-planning order that eliminated 
reunification with respondent-father from the children’s permanent plan. The 
                                            
1 We use these pseudonyms to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of reading. 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
children’s mother has relinquished her parental rights and is not a party to this 
appeal.  We affirm.  
¶ 2 
 
On 1 May 2018, the Dare County Department of Health and Human Services, 
Division of Social Services (DSS), obtained nonsecure custody of six-year-old David 
and five-year-old Allison and filed juvenile petitions alleging they were neglected 
juveniles. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 9 August 2018 
adjudicating the children as neglected juveniles based on respondents’ stipulation to 
the following facts:  
9. 
On April 30, 2018, [the children’s mother] left 
the juveniles at her home with two persons who are not 
appropriate caregivers. [Her] neighbors called the police 
because the juveniles were yelling out of the upstairs 
windows that they were hungry and afraid to go 
downstairs. 
10. 
Police performed a welfare check at [the 
children’s mother’s] home on April 30, 2018 after receiving 
calls from her neighbors. . . . Once the juveniles were 
secured, police searched [the] home. They found two small 
bags with a white powdery substance they believed to be 
cocaine in the juveniles’ clothes and toy boxes. They found 
drug paraphernalia, including two burned pipes and two 
burned spoons. They also found about six grams of a 
powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the 
freezer. 
11. 
[The children’s mother] failed to properly feed 
the juveniles. The home she provided for the juveniles was 
filthy, unkempt, and unsafe. There was moldy food in the 
kitchen, garbage throughout the home, and no suitable 
beds for the juveniles to sleep on. 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
12. 
When [the children’s mother] arrived home, 
she told police that she had been on a date and had paid 
one of the individuals in the home $20.00 to watch the kids. 
She told police she had been gone for two hours and did not 
know who had been in her home. [She] was arrested and 
charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug 
paraphernalia. 
13. 
[Respondent-father] had limited contact with 
the juveniles before the Juvenile Petition was filed. He has 
willingly left the juveniles in the care of [the children’s 
mother]. 
14. 
Neither 
[the 
children’s 
mother] 
nor 
[respondent-father] have provided a safe, appropriate 
home for the juveniles. 
15. 
[The children’s mother] and [respondent-
father] have failed to provide proper care and supervision 
for the juveniles. They have exposed the juveniles to 
unsafe, injurious environments. 
16. 
The juveniles require more adequate care and 
supervision than [the children’s mother] or [respondent-
father] can provide in their homes. 
¶ 3 
 
In a disposition order entered on 6 November 2018, the trial court maintained 
the children in DSS custody and awarded respondent-father one hour per week of 
supervised visitation. The court found respondent-father had visited the children on 
two occasions since their placement in nonsecure custody but was arrested on 20 June 
2018 and was facing “serious” felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County, which 
could result in “a substantial prison sentence.” The court ordered respondent-father 
to enter into a visitation plan with DSS “to establish a regular, consistent visitation 
schedule”; submit to random drug screens as requested by DSS and abstain from all 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
intoxicating substances; obtain a substance abuse assessment and comply with all 
treatment recommendations; and keep DSS apprised of his whereabouts and address.  
¶ 4 
 
At the initial permanency-planning hearing held on 6 February 2019, the trial 
court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with the 
children’s mother or respondent-father with a secondary plan of guardianship with a 
relative. The court maintained these primary and secondary plans at the next 
permanency-planning hearing held on 8 May 2019 and up to the permanency-
planning hearing held on 7 August 2019.  
¶ 5 
 
However, in its permanency-planning order entered on 26 August 2019, the 
trial court changed the primary permanent plan to adoption, established a secondary 
plan of reunification with the children’s mother, and relieved DSS of further 
reunification efforts with respondent-father. The court found that respondent-father 
had yet to enter into a case plan or visitation plan with DSS; he had submitted to a 
drug screen after a court appearance on 6 February 2019 and tested positive for 
marijuana and cocaine; he had scheduled an appointment for substance abuse 
treatment at PORT New Horizons but failed to attend the appointment; and he had 
been incarcerated since May 2019 for assaulting “his young paramour.” The court 
also noted that respondent-father’s felony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County 
remained pending. Respondent-father filed a timely notice to preserve his right to 
appeal the order eliminating reunification with him from the children’s permanent 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2)(a), (b) (2019).  
¶ 6 
 
DSS filed a motion to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights on 11 
December 2019. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 3 June and 1 July 
2020 and entered its “Termination of Parental Rights Order” on 5 August 2020. In its 
order, the court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate respondent-father’s 
parental rights for neglect, lack of reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2), (6) (2019). The trial court further concluded that termination of 
respondent-father’s parental rights was in both children’s best interests. See N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-1110(a) (2019). Respondent-father filed timely notices of appeal from the 
termination order and from the order eliminating reunification with him from the 
permanent plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1)–(2), (b).  
¶ 7 
 
Counsel for respondent-father has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s behalf 
under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel 
advised respondent-father 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-father has not submitted written arguments to this Court. 
¶ 8 
 
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). 
Respondent-father’s counsel has identified issues that could arguably support an 
appeal in this case while also explaining why, based on a careful review of the record, 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
these issues lack merit.  
¶ 9 
 
With regard to the order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan, 
counsel for respondent-father acknowledges that competent evidence supports the 
trial court’s findings of fact and that the findings support the court’s conclusion that 
further efforts to reunify David and Allison with respondent-father “would clearly be 
unsuccessful or inconsistent with the juveniles’ need for a permanent pla[cement] 
within a reasonable period of time.” See N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019). At the time of 
the permanency-planning hearing respondent-father had made no meaningful steps 
toward reunification; he was incarcerated for a recent act of domestic violence; he had 
submitted to just one drug screen, which was positive for marijuana and cocaine; and 
he had failed to attend a scheduled appointment to begin substance abuse treatment. 
The trial court’s ceasing of reunification efforts with respondent-father thus comports 
with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b). 
¶ 10 
 
Turning to the termination order, counsel for respondent-father concedes that 
“the existence of a single ground for termination suffices to support the termination 
of a parent’s parental rights in a child,” In re J.S., 2021-NCSC-28, ¶ 24, and that the 
evidence and the trial court’s findings support a conclusion under N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(2) that respondent-father willfully left the children in a placement outside 
the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct 
the conditions leading to their removal. Respondent-father’s failure to comply with 
IN RE D.M. & A.H. 
2021-NCSC-95 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the court’s orders or address his substance abuse issues, as well as his continued 
involvement in criminal conduct and resulting incarceration, evinced a lack of 
reasonable progress since the children were removed from the children’s mother’s 
custody in May 2018. See In re Z.K., 375 N.C. 370, 373 (2020). The trial court did not 
err in adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-1111(a)(2).    
¶ 11 
 
Finally, the trial court made written findings addressing each of the factors 
relevant to disposition under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a). As counsel for respondent-father 
admits, the findings provide a rational basis for the trial court’s assessment that 
terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests 
in that it will facilitate the children’s adoption by their maternal aunt and uncle. We 
further note these findings are supported by competent evidence presented at the 
termination hearing. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion during the dispositional stage of the proceeding by choosing to terminate 
respondent-father’s parental rights. In re Z.K., 375 N.C. at 373, 847 S.E.2d at 749. 
¶ 12 
 
Having considered the entire record and the issues identified in the no-merit 
brief, we affirm the trial court’s order eliminating reunification from the permanent 
plan and the trial court’s order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights.  
AFFIRMED.