Case Title: In re C.M.F.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 209A21

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-132 
No. 209A21 
Filed 5 November 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF:  C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered 2 March 
2021 by Judge Ricky W. Champion in District Court, Alamance County.  This matter 
was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 30 September 2021, but was 
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of 
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
 
Jamie L. Hamlett for petitioner-appellee Alamance County Department of 
Social Services. 
 
Thomas N. Griffin, III, for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant-mother. 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondent-mother Krystle H. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating 
her parental rights in three of her children.  Respondent-mother’s appellate counsel 
has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s behalf pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(e).  After 
careful consideration of the record in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the 
issues identified by respondent-mother’s appellate counsel as arguably supporting an 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
award of relief from the trial court’s termination order lack merit and affirm the trial 
court’s termination order. 
¶ 2 
 
Respondent-mother Krystle H. and the father James E. were married on 15 
July 2006, with five children having been born of their marriage, one of whom, 
N.S.E.,1 was born on 1 December 2010 in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.  Respondent-
mother and Mr. E. divorced on or about 21 August 2012.  On or about 2 August 2012, 
respondent-mother married Joe H., with D.J.H.2 having been born of their marriage 
in Hattiesburg on 24 September 2013.  Respondent-mother and Mr. H. divorced on 
28 August 2017.  C.M.F.3 was born to respondent-mother and Joshua R. in 
Hattiesburg on 4 October 2017.  While they were living in Mississippi, the children 
were the subject of a juvenile court proceeding that involved allegations of sexual 
abuse during which they were placed in foster care before being returned to 
respondent-mother’s custody. 
¶ 3 
 
Respondent-mother and the children had been residing in North Carolina since 
December 2019, when respondent-mother moved to this State in order to live with a 
man that she had met through an on-line dating service.  On 25 February 2020, the 
                                            
1 N.S.E. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Nancy,” which 
is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the juvenile’s privacy. 
2 D.J.H. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Danny,” which 
is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the privacy of the juvenile. 
3 C.M.F. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as “Carol,” which 
is a pseudonym that will be used for ease of reading and to protect the privacy of the juvenile. 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Alamance County Department of Social Services obtained the entry of an order taking 
the children into nonsecure custody and filed a juvenile petition alleging that Carol, 
Danny, and Nancy were neglected and dependent juveniles.4  In its petition, DSS 
alleged that the children received improper supervision, had insufficient housing, 
lacked proper hygiene, and had been subjected to improper discipline; that 
respondent-mother lacked adequate financial resources and parenting skills and had 
mental health and substance abuse-related problems; and that respondent-mother 
and her boyfriend had assaulted the children.  After the filing of the petition, Judge 
Kathryn W. Overby communicated with the applicable judicial authorities in 
Mississippi, with that state having declined to exercise jurisdiction over the children 
after determining that North Carolina would be a more convenient forum. 
¶ 4 
 
On 22 June 2020, Judge Overby entered an adjudication order based upon 
stipulations by respondent-mother in which Judge Overby found that Carol, Danny, 
and Nancy were neglected and dependent juveniles, determined that a dispositional 
hearing would be held at a later time, and ordered that the children remain in the 
temporary custody of DSS.  On 22 July 2020, Judge Overby entered a dispositional 
order providing that the children would remain in DSS custody; requiring the parents 
                                            
4 The underlying neglect and dependency proceeding involved children in addition to 
Carol, Danny, and Nancy.  However, none of these other children were the subject of the 
termination of parental rights proceeding that is before us in this case.  As a result, we will 
refrain from commenting upon the proceedings relating to the other children in this opinion. 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
to provide support for the children while they were in DSS custody; and ordering that, 
in order to reunify with the children, respondent-mother develop a sufficient source 
of income to provide for herself and the children; provide for a safe, stable, and secure 
home environment; refrain from allowing her use of unlawful substances to interfere 
with her ability to parent the children; obtain a substance abuse and mental health 
assessment and comply with all treatment-related recommendations; participate in 
parenting education and demonstrate the ability to use the skills that she had learned 
during her interactions with the children; demonstrate the ability to meet the medical 
and mental health needs of the children by attending their medical and mental health 
appointments; and visit with the children.5 
¶ 5 
 
After a permanency planning and review hearing held on 23 September 2020, 
Judge Overby entered an order on 9 October 2020 in which she found, among other 
things, that, while respondent-mother was employed at McDonald’s, she had failed 
to provide sufficient information concerning her earnings, that respondent-mother 
had failed to secure stable and adequate housing, that respondent-mother’s substance 
abuse assessment had resulted in a diagnosis of tobacco use disorder, that 
respondent-mother’s mental health assessment had resulted in recommendations 
                                            
5 Judge Overby also ordered that the fathers take certain steps in order to be reunified 
with their children.  In view of the fact that there are no issues relating to the fathers before 
us in this case, we will refrain from describing the provisions of the dispositional order or 
subsequent orders relating to the fathers in this opinion. 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
that respondent-mother participate in individual and group therapy and medication 
management, that respondent-mother had participated in a single medication 
management session, and that respondent-mother had failed to take any steps to 
satisfy her obligation to provide support for her children.  As a result, Judge Overby 
determined that the primary permanent plan for Carol, Danny, and Nancy should be 
adoption, with a secondary plan of reunification, in light of respondent-mother’s 
failure to make adequate progress toward rectifying the concerns that had led to the 
children’s removal from her home. 
¶ 6 
 
On 24 November 2020, DSS filed a motion seeking to terminate respondent-
mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy on the grounds that respondent-
mother’s parental rights in the children were subject to termination on the basis of 
neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1); failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the 
care that the children had received while in a placement outside the home, N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-1111(a)(3); and dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), and that the termination 
of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests.  On 
2 March 2021, the trial court entered an order concluding that respondent-mother’s 
parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy were subject to termination on the basis 
of all three of the grounds for termination alleged in the termination petition and that 
the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best 
interests.  Based upon these determinations, the trial court ordered that respondent-
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
mother’s parental rights in the children be terminated.6  Respondent-mother noted 
an appeal from the trial court’s termination order to this Court. 
¶ 7 
 
Respondent-mother’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on his client’s 
behalf.  In that brief, respondent-mother’s appellate counsel identified a number of 
issues that could potentially provide a basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial 
court’s termination order, including whether the record evidence and the trial court’s 
findings of fact provided adequate support for its determination that respondent-
mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy were subject to termination and 
whether the trial court had abused its discretion by determining that the termination 
of respondent-mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests.  
Ultimately, however, respondent-mother’s appellate counsel concluded that there 
was no non-frivolous basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial court’s 
determination that respondent-mother’s parental rights in the children were subject 
to termination on the basis of her failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the 
children’s care while in DSS custody, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3), and that, since the 
termination order contained findings of fact that were supported by sufficient record 
evidence relating to the dispositional factors delineated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and 
                                            
6 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the fathers in his termination 
order.  In view of the fact that none of the children’s fathers have sought review of the trial 
court’s termination order by this Court, we will refrain from discussing the termination-
related proceedings concerning the fathers any further in this opinion. 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
since the trial court’s findings of fact provided adequate support for its dispositional 
decision, there was no non-frivolous basis for challenging the lawfulness of the trial 
court’s determination that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights 
would be in the children’s best interests.  Although respondent-mother’s appellate 
counsel communicated with respondent-mother for the purpose of advising her that 
she had a right to file written arguments for the Court’s consideration and provided 
respondent-mother with the materials necessary to permit her to do so, respondent-
mother failed to submit any written arguments for consideration by the Court.  Both 
DSS and the guardian ad litem filed briefs expressing agreement with the conclusion 
reached by respondent-mother’s appellate counsel that the record does not disclose 
the existence of any arguably meritorious issues in this case. 
¶ 8 
 
This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit 
brief filed pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(e) for the purpose of determining if any of 
those issues have potential merit.  In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019).  After a 
careful review of the issues identified in the no-merit brief filed by respondent-
mother’s appellate counsel in this case in light of the record and the applicable law, 
we are satisfied that the findings of fact contained in the trial court’s termination 
order have ample record support and that the trial court did not err in the course of 
determining that respondent-mother’s parental rights in the children were subject to 
termination and that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights would 
IN RE C.M.F., D.J.H., N.S.E. 
2021-NCSC-132 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
be in the children’s best interests.  As a result, we affirm the trial court’s order 
terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Carol, Danny, and Nancy. 
AFFIRMED.