Case Title: In re K.B.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 48A21

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-108 
No. 48A21 
Filed 24 September 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF: K.B. & G.B. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from orders entered on 20 
October 2020 by Judge Beverly Scarlett in the District Court of Orange County. This 
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 19 August 2021 but 
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of 
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.  
 
Stephenson & Fleming, LLP, by Deana K. Fleming, for petitioner-appellee 
Orange County Department of Social Services. 
 
Steven C. Wilson for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Jeffrey L. Miller for respondent-appellant mother. 
 
Sydney Batch for respondent-appellant father. 
 
 
HUDSON, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondents appeal from orders terminating their parental rights in their 
children, K.B. (Kate)1 and G.B. (Greg) (collectively the children). Respondent-mother 
challenges the trial court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate her parental 
rights in the children pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) (2019). 
                                            
1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the juveniles and for ease of reading. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Respondent-father argues the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it 
was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated. For the 
reasons stated herein, we affirm. 
I. 
Background 
 
¶ 2 
 
Respondents are the parents of Kate, born in September 2012, and Greg, born 
in December 2014. On 22 February 2013, Orange County Department of Social 
Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging Kate was a neglected and dependent juvenile. 
The petition alleged that in September 2012, DSS received a report that respondents 
had a violent argument wherein law enforcement was called, both parents were 
intoxicated, and Kate was present. As a result of this incident, respondents signed a 
safety plan in which they agreed to refrain from drinking when caring for Kate and 
from arguing in Kate’s presence. On 1 November 2012, however, law enforcement 
responded to another domestic violence call. Then, on 25 December 2012, respondent-
father reported to law enforcement that respondent-mother was intoxicated and 
driving with Kate in the back seat of the car. On 14 February 2013, respondent-
mother was stopped by the North Carolina Highway Patrol for driving under the 
influence. A safety agreement was reached where respondent-mother agreed to not 
drive Kate except to drop her off at daycare in the mornings. The petition further 
alleged that respondent-father completed a substance abuse assessment and had 
been cooperative with DSS but continued to abuse alcohol. He acknowledged his 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
addiction and agreed to seek treatment. Respondent-mother was less cooperative 
with DSS and denied her addiction. DSS alleged that Kate was at high risk of harm 
due to respondents’ substance abuse.  
¶ 3 
 
On 5 March 2013, respondents agreed to entry of a consent order that granted 
temporary custody of Kate to DSS. On 21 March 2013, the trial court entered a 
temporary custody order continuing Kate’s custody with DSS. On 29 May 2013, Kate 
was adjudicated a neglected and dependent juvenile, and the trial court concluded 
that it was in her best interests that she remain in the custody of DSS. Respondent-
mother was ordered to complete a screening for Family Drug Treatment Court 
(FDTC) and, if accepted, to comply with treatment recommendations. In the event 
she was not accepted into FDTC, the court ordered her to engage in intensive 
outpatient substance abuse services and to follow all recommendations. Respondent-
father was ordered to continue to engage in substance abuse treatment and follow all 
recommendations and to engage in mental health treatment to address anger issues. 
Respondents were ordered to complete drug and alcohol screens as requested by DSS, 
to refrain from using drugs or alcohol, and to have supervised visitation with Kate.  
¶ 4 
 
On 7 August 2013, the trial court entered an order suspending Kate’s visitation 
with respondent-mother. The trial court entered a permanency planning order on 17 
December 2013 reinstating respondent-mother’s supervised visitation with Kate and 
setting the permanent plan for Kate to be reunification with respondent-father with 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
a concurrent plan of reunification with respondent-mother. The trial court entered a 
permanency planning order on 19 March 2014, setting reunification with respondent-
father as the permanent plan for Kate with a concurrent plan of guardianship with 
the maternal grandmother and authorizing a trial home placement of Kate with 
respondent-father. On 30 January 2015, the trial court entered a permanency 
planning and custody order awarding respondent-father custody of Kate and granting 
supervised visitation to respondent-mother. The order transferred jurisdiction from 
juvenile to domestic court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-911. 
¶ 5 
 
On 17 December 2015, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging that Kate and Greg 
were neglected and dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that on 11 December 
2015, DSS received a report of domestic violence and substance abuse by respondents. 
Respondent-mother reported that respondent-father had been “smoking crack” at 
least five times a week, drinking alcohol, and acting erratically. She also reported 
that domestic violence occurred between them. Respondent-father was arrested on 9 
December 2015 and released the following day. Respondents failed to complete a drug 
screen as requested. Respondent-father reported taking Percocet, and respondent-
mother reported using alcohol and marijuana a month earlier.  
¶ 6 
 
On 22 December 2015, respondents agreed to the entry of a consent order that 
continued non-secure custody and placement authority with DSS. On 29 February 
2016, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Kate and Greg to be neglected 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
juveniles and continuing custody with DSS. Respondents were ordered to, among 
other things, participate in substance abuse services and follow recommendations, 
submit to random drug screens, participate in individual therapy, and participate in 
supervised visitation with the children. On 15 June 2016, the trial court entered a 
custody order that continued custody of Kate and Greg with DSS and set the primary 
plan as reunification with a parent, with a secondary plan of guardianship/custody 
with a relative. 
¶ 7 
 
On 3 January 2017, the trial court entered a permanency planning order 
authorizing a trial home placement of Kate and Greg with respondent-father. The 
trial court entered a permanency planning and custody order on 9 March 2017 
awarding custody of Kate and Greg to respondent-father and granting supervised 
visitation to respondent-mother. The order transferred jurisdiction from juvenile to 
domestic court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-911.  
¶ 8 
 
On 11 April 2019, DSS obtained non-secure custody of Kate and Greg and 
placed them in their maternal grandmother’s home, where respondent-mother was 
also living. DSS also filed juvenile petitions alleging them to be neglected juveniles. 
The petition alleged that on 7 April 2019, there was an argument between 
respondent-father and his eldest daughter’s2 boyfriend in which respondent-father 
attempted to strike the boyfriend with a bat and aimed a gun at him. Kate was inside 
                                            
2 Respondent-father’s eldest daughter is not a subject of this appeal. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the home during the incident. On 10 April 2019, DSS received a Child Protective 
Services (CPS) report that respondent-father had physically abused his eldest 
daughter. His eldest daughter reported that respondent-father was abusing 
substances, sleeping all day (resulting in her truancy), and staying away from home 
for extended periods of time without communication. Respondent-mother completed 
a drug screen on 9 January 2019 which was “positive for extended opiates, 
oxycodone.” Respondent-mother had not engaged in any substance abuse treatment 
since respondent-father was awarded custody of Kate and Greg in 2017. The petition 
further alleged Kate and Greg were at substantial risk of mental, physical, and 
emotional impairment in the care and custody of respondent-father, and respondent-
mother was not appropriate for placement. On 16 April 2019, respondents agreed to 
a consent order that continued custody of Kate and Greg with DSS, ordered 
supervised visitation with respondent-father, and ordered respondent-mother to be 
supervised at all times around the children.  
¶ 9 
 
On 13 August 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Kate and 
Greg to be neglected juveniles. The trial court continued the children’s placement 
with their maternal grandmother and allowed respondent-mother to continue living 
in the home with the children, as long as her contact with them was supervised by 
the maternal grandmother or other DSS-approved supervisor. Respondent-father 
was granted supervised visitation with the children. Respondent-father was ordered 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
to: comply with random drug screens; complete an assessment with Pathways to 
Change and follow recommendations; complete updated mental health and substance 
abuse 
assessments 
and 
follow 
recommendations; 
and 
comply 
with 
all 
recommendations of FDTC. Respondent-mother was ordered to comply with random 
drug screens and complete a substance abuse and mental health assessment and 
follow all recommendations. 
¶ 10 
 
On 6 August 2019, respondent-mother filed a motion for unsupervised 
visitation with the children. On 29 August 2019, the trial court ordered respondent-
mother to comply with random drug screens, to complete A Fresh Start treatment 
program and follow recommendations, to engage in current substance abuse 
treatment consistent with her case plan, and to have negative drug screens. The trial 
court also ordered that respondent-mother’s visitation and contacts with the children 
should remain supervised, but granted DSS and the treatment team discretion to 
allow unsupervised visitation and contact upon respondent-mother’s compliance with 
the order. 
¶ 11 
 
On 22 October 2019, the trial court entered a custody review order finding that 
respondent-mother tested positive for oxycodone in January 2019, April 2019, and 
May 2019 and tested positive for amphetamines, heroin, and alcohol on 28 August 
2019. Respondent-mother had failed to consistently engage in individual or group 
therapy, and her current engagement in treatment at A Fresh Start did not meet her 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
current level of need. The trial court found that respondent-father lost his housing in 
June 2019. He was diagnosed with cocaine, alcohol, cannabis, and opioid dependence 
and had not been compliant with requested drug screens. The trial court continued 
custody of the children with DSS, continued the children’s placement with the 
maternal grandmother, authorized respondent-mother to live in the placement with 
the children, and continued respondent-father’s supervised visitation with the 
children. 
¶ 12 
 
In January 2020, DSS learned that respondent-mother had taken the children, 
without the maternal grandmother, to Raleigh unsupervised. As a result, on 9 
January 2020, Kate and Greg were moved to a foster home. 
¶ 13 
 
Following a permanency planning hearing on 16 January 2020, the trial court 
entered an order on 3 February 2020 finding that respondent-father was currently 
homeless and had not consistently engaged in treatment or services. Respondent-
father had completed detox in May, June, and August of 2019. After his discharge 
from detox in June, “he went to an Oxford House but was asked to leave in the first 
week of July,” and after his discharge from detox in August, he went to a halfway 
house but left after approximately two weeks. The trial court further found that 
respondent-mother had been unable to sustain consistent engagement in services to 
address her substance abuse and mental health issues until recently. She had tested 
positive for alcohol, heroin, and opiates in October, November, and December 2019, 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
and positive for alcohol in January 2020. Respondent-mother had not been in contact 
with DSS since 22 October 2019 and had failed to maintain stable housing and 
transportation. The primary permanent plan for Kate and Greg was changed to 
adoption with a secondary plan of reunification.  
¶ 14 
 
On 28 April 2020, DSS filed motions to terminate respondents’ parental rights 
in Kate and Greg. DSS alleged that respondents had neglected the children, see 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019), and willfully placed them in foster care or placement 
outside the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress 
to correct the conditions which led to their removal, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) 
(2019).  
¶ 15 
 
Following hearings on 20 August 2020 and 8 September 2020, the trial court 
entered orders on 20 October 2020 concluding that grounds existed to terminate 
respondents’ parental rights in the children pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and 
(2). The trial court also concluded that it was in the children’s best interests that 
respondents’ parental rights be terminated and terminated respondents’ parental 
rights. Respondents appeal. 
II. 
Analysis 
 
A. Respondent-mother’s Appeal 
 
¶ 16 
 
Respondent-mother challenges some of the trial court’s findings of fact as not 
being supported by the evidence and contends the trial court’s findings of fact were 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
insufficient to support its conclusions that grounds existed to terminate her parental 
rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2). We first address termination under 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). 
¶ 17 
 
 “Our Juvenile Code provides for a two-step process for termination of parental 
rights proceedings consisting of an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage.”        
In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 94 (2020) (citing N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019)). “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 General Statutes.” In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3, 5–6 (2019) 
(quoting N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) (2019)). 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 E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery, 
311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the 
evidence and are binding on appeal. In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 437 (2019). “The trial 
court’s conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.” In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 
16, 19 (2019).  
¶ 18 
 
Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), a trial court may terminate parental rights if 
it concludes the parent has neglected the juvenile within the meaning of N.C.G.S.       
§ 7B-101. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019). A neglected juvenile is defined, in 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
pertinent part, as a juvenile “whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker does 
not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; or who has been abandoned; . . . or 
who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile’s welfare[.]” N.C.G.S. § 7B-
101(15) (2019). The conditions at issue must 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 (2003) (citation omitted).  
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 a likelihood of future neglect by the 
parent. 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 (2020) (cleaned up). “A parent’s failure to make 
progress in completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect.”         
In re M.A., 374 N.C. 865, 870 (2020) (quoting In re M.J.S.M., 257 N.C. App. 633, 637 
(2018)). 
¶ 19 
 
Here, there were no allegations that respondent-mother was currently 
neglecting Kate and Greg at the time of the termination hearing. Moreover, it is 
undisputed that the children were out of respondent-mother’s custody for an extended 
period of time and that they were previously adjudicated to be neglected juveniles on 
13 August 2019. Accordingly, the issue before this Court is whether the trial court 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
properly determined that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the children were 
returned to respondent-mother’s care.  
¶ 20 
 
In its termination orders, the trial court made numerous findings of fact to 
support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother’s 
parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), as described in the background 
section of this opinion. The trial court found that respondent-mother failed to take 
the juvenile case, CPS involvement, and her substance use disorder seriously, and 
that respondent-mother’s continued drug use, failure to maintain a safe and stable 
home, and failure to assure the children received necessary care and supervision 
subjected the children to the risks of physical and emotional harm and created an 
injurious environment. The trial court found that there was likelihood of a repetition 
of neglect if the children were returned to respondent-mother’s care because she had 
not appropriately engaged in or completed recommended substance abuse or mental 
health treatment, and she had continued to deny that her substance use was an issue 
related to parenting, failed to understand concerns related to her unsupervised 
contact with and transporting of the children, failed to make any efforts to address 
her history of domestic violence and its impact on the children, and failed to maintain 
or establish a safe home for the children. 
¶ 21 
 
On appeal, respondent-mother first argues that “[o]ther than her drug screen 
test results showing substance use and the two incidents of a lack of supervision, and 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
her inconsistent engagement in therapy,” there was no evidence presented of any 
actual impact or impairment suffered by the children. She asserts that the trial 
court’s findings “shed little light” on how her substance use and inconsistent 
engagement in mental health treatment impacted the children. We disagree. 
¶ 22 
 
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 . . . .” In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283 (citation omitted). Here, the 
trial court made express findings that Kate and Greg were impaired or at a 
substantial risk of impairment as a result of respondent mother’s neglect. Regarding 
both children, the trial court found: 
[81. and 82.] Respondent mother failed to take the juvenile 
case, CPS involvement, and her substance use disorder 
seriously. She incredulously fails to understand the noted 
safety concerns of the [children] unsupervised in her care 
while she continues to use unprescribed and illegal 
substances.3 
 
¶ 23 
 
Regarding Kate, the trial court found: 
 
83. [Kate] was impaired and at a substantial risk of 
impairment as a result of Respondent mother’s neglect. 
Specifically, this court finds [the] following facts: 
 
a. This court references and fully incorporates 
Findings of Fact numbers 1 through 82 and subparts 
set forth above as if set forth fully below as findings 
                                            
3 This finding of fact is labeled as finding of fact number 82 in the order terminating 
respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate. It is labeled finding of fact 81 in the order 
terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg.  
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
of fact. 
 
 
b. Respondent mother’s continued drug abuse, her 
failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and her 
failure to assure that [Kate] receives necessary care 
and supervision subjects [Kate] to the risks of 
physical and emotional harm and creates an 
environment injurious to her welfare.  
 
 
c. [Kate] exhibits parentified behaviors in relation to 
her younger sibling, [Greg], in that she has taken on 
the roles and responsibility of caretaker in the home 
due to improper supervision and care. 
 
 
d. [Kate] is diagnosed with adjustment disorder and 
she is engaged in recommended weekly therapy. 
 
 
e. Respondent mother has not had authorized 
unsupervised contact with [Kate] since custody was 
granted to Respondent father and then to [DSS] due 
to continued safety concerns related to her 
substance use. 
 
 
f. While [Kate] was in the placement with [the 
maternal grandmother], there are noted concerns 
regarding Respondent mother having unsupervised 
contact and the extent to which [Kate] was providing 
care for [Greg] who exhibits significant disruptive 
behaviors. 
 
¶ 24 
 
Regarding Greg, the trial court found: 
82. [Greg] was impaired and at a substantial risk of 
impairment as a result of Respondent mother’s neglect. 
Specifically, this court finds [the] following facts: 
 
a. This court references and fully incorporates 
Findings of Fact numbers 1 through 81 and subparts 
set forth above as if set forth fully below as findings 
of fact. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
 
 
b. Respondent mother’s continued drug abuse, her 
failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and her 
failure to assure that [Greg] receives necessary care 
and supervision subjects [Greg] to the risks of 
physical and emotional harm and creates an 
environment injurious to h[is] welfare.  
 
 
c. [Greg] has exhibited difficulty in regulating his 
behaviors since [DSS] was awarded custody, 
including during placement with [the] maternal 
grandmother . . . , in his current foster home 
placement as well as daycare and school. 
 
 
d. [Greg’s] behaviors include not listening to 
directions, temper tantrums, problematic or lack of 
nighttime routine, sleep disturbance, and hitting. 
 
 
e. [Greg] is diagnosed with adjustment disorder and 
he displays PTSD symptom[s]. He is engaged in 
recommended weekly individual therapy. 
 
 
f. [Greg] had a recent psychiatric evaluation which 
recommended psychotropic medications to assist 
with his sleep. Lack of sleep has a corresponding 
negative impact on his behaviors. 
 
 
g. On July 24, 2020, Respondent mother participated 
in a virtual meeting with UNC Psychiatry to discuss 
the 
recommendation 
of 
using 
psychotropic 
medication coupled with therapy to assist in 
managing [Greg’s] behaviors and sleep disturbance. 
Respondent 
mother 
withheld 
consent 
for 
medication. 
 
¶ 25 
 
Respondent-mother contends that the foregoing findings of fact constitute 
“purported and speculated impairments or risks of impairment” to the children which 
were unsupported by the evidence and insufficient to support neglect. She also 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
challenges the portions of findings regarding the children’s difficulty in regulating 
behavior, the children’s diagnoses of adjustment disorder, and Kate’s “parentified” 
behaviors, arguing that the evidence on these issues were presented at the disposition 
stage, not at the adjudication stage. A review of the record establishes that these 
arguments are without merit.  
¶ 26 
 
During the adjudicatory phase of the termination hearing, a DSS social worker 
testified that respondent-mother’s multiple positive drug screens are what concerned 
DSS and caused the need for supervised contact with the children and that DSS was 
greatly concerned when respondent-mother transported the children unsupervised in 
January 2020. The DSS social worker also testified that during the time the children 
were placed in the home of their maternal grandmother and respondent-mother, they 
had “some behavioral needs.” Kate exhibited “internalizing behaviors” such as “not 
wanting to show or to talk about her emotions, not feeling comfortable when she is 
feeling something, potentially withdrawing.” She was diagnosed with adjustment 
disorder. The DSS social worker testified that Kate took on a parent role towards 
Greg and that it was concerning “because parentification of children is typically 
they’re trying to fill a role for their parents [that] are not able or not willing to provide 
for their siblings.” 
¶ 27 
 
The DSS social worker further testified that Greg had more “external 
behaviors” by engaging in outbursts, tantrums, failing to listen, and “choosing to do 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
his own task instead of what has been asked.” After the children were placed in their 
foster home, “some of their behaviors became—like come to the forefront again, 
particularly for [Greg] in terms of the not listening.” His behaviors “escalated” and 
included difficulty sleeping and hitting classmates or the foster mother. Greg 
underwent an assessment at UNC Psychiatry and was diagnosed with adjustment 
disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medication to address Greg’s difficulty 
sleeping was recommended, but respondent-mother did not consent to treatment. 
Thus, finding of fact 83c, d, and f of the order terminating respondent-mother’s 
parental rights in Kate and finding of fact 82c, d, e, f, and g of the order terminating 
respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg are supported by clear, cogent, and 
convincing evidence. 
¶ 28 
 
Respondent-mother also argues that there was no evidence she failed to 
maintain a safe and stable home, and that from April 2019 until the termination 
hearings in August and September of 2020, there was no evidence she failed to 
provide necessary care or supervision subjecting either child to the risks of physical 
or emotional harm or created an environment injurious to their welfare. We disagree. 
Unchallenged findings of fact establish that while the children were placed in the 
maternal grandmother’s home where respondent-mother also resided, respondent-
mother was ordered to only have supervised contact with the children. DSS learned 
that on 11 July 2019, Greg stayed home with respondent-mother unsupervised, and 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
on 5 January 2020, respondent-mother drove the children unsupervised and without 
a valid driver’s license. Thereafter, on 9 January 2020, the children were placed in a 
licensed foster home due to continued safety and supervision concerns in the 
maternal grandmother’s home and lack of evidence of respondent-mother’s sustained 
sobriety. Furthermore, respondent-mother moved out of the maternal grandmother’s 
home after the children were placed in foster care and failed to be forthcoming about 
this residence. The trial court reasonably inferred from these unchallenged findings 
that the children were subjected to the risks of physical and emotional harm and that 
respondent-mother’s drug use, failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and failure 
to assure the children received necessary care and supervision created an 
environment injurious to their welfare. See In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 385, 843 (2016) 
(stating that it is the trial judge’s duty to consider all the evidence, pass upon the 
credibility of the witnesses, and determine the reasonable inferences to be drawn 
therefrom). Moreover, the trial court also made the reasonable inference that 
respondent-mother failed to understand or take seriously DSS’s safety concerns of 
the children being unsupervised in her care while she continued to abuse illegal 
substances. See id. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings of fact 82 and 83b in the 
order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate and findings of fact 
81 and 82b in the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg are 
supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 29 
 
Next, respondent-mother challenges the trial court’s determination that there 
existed a likelihood of a repetition of neglect if the children were returned to her care. 
She contends that the trial court failed to consider and address changed 
circumstances, pointing to the fact that she provided daily care for the children while 
they were placed in the maternal grandmother’s home, there had been no domestic 
violence incidents involving respondent-mother since 2015, and she consistently 
visited the children and brought them toys after they were placed in foster care. We 
are not convinced.  
¶ 30 
 
As an initial matter, it is well established that the “trial court need not make 
a finding as to every fact which arises from the evidence; rather, the court need only 
find those facts which are material to the resolution of the dispute.” Witherow v. 
Witherow, 99 N.C. App. 61, 63 (1990), aff’d per curiam, 328 N.C. 324 (1991). As 
previously stated, respondent-mother’s failure to make progress in completing a case 
plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect. In re M.A., 374 N.C. at 870. The 
trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact reflect that respondent-mother had not 
adequately made progress in completing her case plan at the time of the termination 
hearing. After DSS obtained custody of the children in April 2019, she agreed to 
complete an updated mental health and substance abuse assessment and follow all 
recommendations, to comply with random drug screens including urine, hair and/or 
nail screens, and to be screened for potential participation in FDTC. However, by the 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
time of the termination hearing, she had not consistently engaged in mental health 
treatment, was not engaged in substance abuse treatment, continued to deny she had 
substance abuse issues, failed to follow substance abuse treatment and mental health 
recommendations, and tested positive or failed to comply with numerous random 
drug screens. Based on the foregoing, the trial court properly determined that 
respondent-mother neglected the children, and there was a likelihood of future 
neglect if Kate and Greg were returned to respondent-mother’s care. Because the 
existence of a single ground for termination suffices to support the termination of a 
parent’s parental rights in a child, see In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190, 194 (2019), we need 
not address whether the trial court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights 
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). 
B. Respondent-father’s Appeal 
 
¶ 31 
 
Respondent-father’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its 
discretion in determining that it was in Kate and Greg’s best interests that his 
parental rights be terminated. Specifically, he contends that he had a strong bond 
with his children, and Greg’s behaviors made adoption unlikely. Based on the reasons 
stated herein, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining 
that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the 
children.  
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 32 
 
 “If [the trial court] determines that one or more grounds listed in section 7B-
1111 are present, the court proceeds to the dispositional stage, at which the court 
must consider whether it is in the best interests of the juvenile to terminate parental 
rights.” In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. at 842 (citing In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 247 (1997); 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110). Unchallenged dispositional findings are binding on appeal. In 
re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. at 437. A trial court’s best interests determination “is reviewed 
solely for abuse of discretion.” In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. at 6 (citing In re D.L.W., 368 
N.C. at 842).   
¶ 33 
 
In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests 
of a juvenile: 
The court may consider any evidence, including hearsay 
evidence as defined in [N.C.]G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801, that the 
court finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to 
determine the best interests of the juvenile. In each case, 
the 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. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
 
(6) Any relevant consideration. 
 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2019).  
 
¶ 34 
 
In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings about Kate 
concerning the factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a): 
105. [Kate’s] age is seven (7). Her age is not a barrier to 
adoption.  
 
106. Termination of Respondent father’s parental rights is 
necessary to implement [Kate’s] primary permanent plan 
of adoption. Adoption offers [Kate] the highest level of 
security and legal permanence.  
 
107. Termination of parental rights [is] the only barrier to 
the adoption of [Kate] and this barrier be [sic] overcome in 
a reasonable period of time by entry of this order.  
 
108. The likelihood of adoption is high. [Kate] is placed in 
a licensed foster home with [Greg]. The foster parents have 
expressed a willingness to adopt [Kate] while also 
recognizing the strong bond [Kate] has with [Greg]. 
 
109. While [Kate’s] behaviors related to adjustment 
disorder and adjustment disorder can be managed by the 
foster parents through individual therapy and parenting 
strategies, [Greg] exhibits behaviors for which medication 
has been recommended, but not yet started due to lack of 
consent.  
 
110. The foster parents are interested in adopting [Kate 
and Greg] as a sibling group; however, they want to ensure 
that they can manage [Greg’s] needs. They are optimistic 
in 
following 
treatment 
recommendations, 
including 
psychotropic medication, for [Greg] to allow for both 
[children] to be adopted. 
 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
111. In the event the current foster parents do not adopt 
[Kate], her likelihood of adoption is still high due to her 
age, resilience, engagement in services, and overall 
positive disposition. Locating another adoptive family is 
not a barrier to her adoption. 
 
112. [Kate] and Respondent father exhibit a strong parent-
child bond at visits. They greet each other with big smiles 
and hugs. She engages well with him at visits, although at 
times, Respondent father has struggled to interact during 
visits. [Kate] is able to end visits without issue.  
 
113. [Kate] has a positive, caring relationship with her 
foster parents who are a proposed adoptive placement. The 
foster parents have a six-year old son with whom she has a 
sibling relationship. The foster home is child-friendly and 
centered, and [Kate] is encouraged to take advantage of 
being a child by playing outside or in her room instead of 
feeling responsibility for supervision of the juvenile. She 
feels safe and secure in this placement.  
 
¶ 35 
 
In a separate order, the trial court made the following findings about Greg 
concerning the factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a): 
105. [Greg] is age five (5). His age is not a barrier to 
adoption.  
 
106. Termination of Respondent father’s parental rights is 
necessary to implement [Greg’s] primary permanent plan 
of adoption. Adoption offers [Greg] the highest level of 
security and legal permanence.  
 
107. Termination of parental rights [is] the only barrier to 
the adoption of [Greg] and this barrier be [sic] overcome in 
a reasonable period of time by entry of this order.  
 
108. The likelihood of adoption is significant. [Greg] is 
placed in a licensed foster home with [Kate]. The foster 
parents recognize the strong bond [Greg] has with [Kate], 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
and they would like to adopt them as a sibling group. 
 
109. [Greg] has displayed concerning behaviors in the 
foster placement related to his diagnosis of adjustment 
disorder and corresponding display of PTSD symptoms. 
The foster parents and current proposed adoptive 
placement have been working with [Greg’s] therapist to 
learn strategies to modify [Greg’s] behaviors, including 
positive reinforcement and a behavior chart.  
 
110. While these strategies have been helpful, UNC 
Psychiatry has recommended [Greg] take medications to 
help with his sleep disturbance which correlates to his 
negative behaviors. While Respondent father eventually 
consented to the recommended regime on August 10, 2020, 
Respondent mother did not consent to the medication.  
 
111. The foster parents are interested in adopting [Greg 
and Kate] as a sibling group; however, they want to ensure 
that they can manage [Greg’s] needs. They are optimistic 
in following treatment recommendations, including the use 
[of] psychotropic medication in addition to therapy to 
address [Greg’s] behaviors to be stabilized.  
 
112. [Greg] is in need of permanency and this uncertainty 
has a negative impact on his therapeutic needs. 
Termination of parental rights would allow for adoption to 
be pursued to allow for a secure, stable placement.  
 
113. In the event the current foster parents do not adopt 
[Greg], his likelihood of adoption is still high due to his age, 
engagement 
in 
therapeutic 
services, 
and 
positive 
improvement based on routine and proper supervision. 
Locating another adoptive family is not a barrier to his 
adoption due to his age and positive demeanor of [Kate] 
with whom he shares a special bond.  
 
114. [Greg] and Respondent father exhibit a strong parent-
child bond at visits. They greet each other with big smiles 
and hugs. [Greg] engages well with him at visits, although 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
at times, Respondent father has struggled to interact 
during visits. [Greg] had difficulty separating at some of 
the initial visits, but he is currently able to end visits 
without issue and he does not ask about him between the 
visits.  
 
115. [Greg] has a positive, caring relationship with his 
foster parents who are a proposed adoptive placement. The 
foster parents have a six-year old son with whom he has a 
sibling relationship. This relationship has been strained 
due to [Greg’s] behaviors; however, there is encouragement 
from his providers that medication will assist in addressing 
these negative behaviors and improve the relationship 
with all family members. The foster home is child-friendly 
and centered, and [Greg] is encouraged to take advantage 
of being a child by playing outside or in [h]is room. The 
foster parents provide [Greg] a safe and secure placement 
to allow him the time to adjust to the many transitions in 
his young life. 
 
¶ 36 
 
First, respondent-father argues the trial court erred in finding that 
termination of his parental rights was the only barrier to adoption. Yet, the record 
evidence clearly supports this finding. A DSS social worker testified that adoption 
had been identified as the children’s primary permanent plan, and the “only” barriers 
to achieving that permanent plan were respondents’ parental rights. Thus, finding of 
fact 107 in both orders terminating respondent-father’s parental rights in the 
children is supported by the evidence. 
¶ 37 
 
Second, respondent-father contends that Greg’s behaviors made the likelihood 
of adoption unlikely and that the trial court’s finding that the likelihood of Greg’s 
adoption is “significant” contradicts its later finding that in the event his current 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
foster parents do not adopt him, his likelihood of adoption “is still high[.]” We do not 
find the trial court’s use of the term “significant” and “high” in reference to the 
likelihood of Greg’s adoption to be contradictory or inconsistent. A DSS social worker 
testified that Greg’s current foster placement was open to adoption, and although 
Greg’s behavioral issues and need for continued treatment constituted barriers, the 
foster parents were “willing to keep trying to address the behaviors to make sure they 
can meet [Greg’s] needs.” The DSS social worker further testified that the foster 
parents wanted to follow “the recommendations of [Greg’s] treating physicians at 
UNC Psychiatry and the need for medication[.]” A guardian ad litem court report also 
indicates that “[w]ith the implementation of the therapeutic plan[,] the likelihood of 
finding an adoptive home [for Greg] is good.” Thus, we do not find respondent-father’s 
arguments compelling. 
¶ 38 
 
Third, respondent-father asserts that the trial court failed to acknowledge that 
the likelihood of implementing Kate’s permanent plan of adoption was connected to 
the marked improvement of Greg’s mental health and behavioral status. We disagree 
with this assessment. In finding of fact 110 of the order terminating respondent-
father’s parental rights in Kate and 111 of the order terminating respondent-father’s 
parental rights in Greg, the trial court found that while the foster parents were 
interested in adopting the children “as a sibling group,” they wanted to “ensure that 
they can manage [Greg’s] needs.” The trial court also found that the foster parents 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
were optimistic in following treatment recommendations to stabilize Greg’s 
behaviors. These findings reflect the trial court’s recognition that Kate’s adoptability 
was related to the treatment of Greg’s behaviors and the foster parents’ ability to 
manage his needs. Respondent-father further asserts that the trial court erred in 
finding that it was highly likely that Kate would be adopted, but this finding is 
supported by the guardian ad litem’s court report, which states that “[t]here are no 
known barriers which would make it difficult [for Kate] to find an adoptive home.”  
¶ 39 
 
Fourth, respondent-father argues that the children’s bond with the foster 
parents “paled in comparison” to the bond they shared with respondent-father. He 
directs the Court’s attention to the fact that he regularly talked on the phone and saw 
his children during visitation, the children were excited to see him and show him 
affection, the children were sad to see him leave, and he brought them food and toys 
at visits. He asserts that the trial court paid “little attention” to the lack of bond the 
children had with the foster parents to justify terminating his parental rights. We do 
not agree with respondent-father’s contentions. The trial court’s findings of fact 112 
and 113 in the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights in Kate and 
findings of fact 114 and 115 in its order terminating respondent-father’s parental 
rights in Greg reflect the trial court’s consideration of the children’s “strong parent-
child bond” with respondent-father, as well as the children’s “positive, caring 
relationship with their foster parents[.]” The bond between respondent-father and his 
IN RE K.B. & G.B. 
2021-NCSC-108 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
children is just one of the factors to be considered under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a), and 
“the trial court is permitted to give greater weight to other factors.” In re Z.L.W., 372 
N.C. 432, 437 (2019). 
¶ 40 
 
The trial court’s findings demonstrate that it considered the dispositional 
factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and “performed a reasoned analysis 
weighing those factors.” In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. at 101. “Because the trial court made 
sufficient dispositional findings and performed the proper analysis of the 
dispositional factors,” id., we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 
in concluding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in Kate and 
Greg’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating 
respondent-father’s parental rights in Kate and Greg. 
III. 
Conclusion 
 
¶ 41 
 
The trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate 
respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate and Greg pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(1). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in 
Kate and Greg’s best interests that respondent-father’s parental rights be 
terminated.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders terminating respondents’ 
parental rights in Kate and Greg. 
AFFIRMED.