Title: In re C.K.I.

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-131 
No. 523A20 
Filed 5 November 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF: C.K.I. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from order entered 5 October 
2020 by Judge Robert P. Trivette in District Court, Dare County. This matter was 
calendared in the Supreme Court on 30 September 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 filed for petitioner-appellee mother. 
 
No brief filed for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Edward Eldred for respondent-appellant father. 
 
 
HUDSON, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondent, the father of the minor child, C.K.I. (Charlie),1 appeals from the 
trial court’s order terminating his parental rights on the ground of willful 
abandonment. We affirm. 
I. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
¶ 2 
 
Petitioner and respondent were in a relationship that began during the 
                                            
1 A pseudonym is used throughout the opinion to protect the child’s identity and for 
ease of reading.  
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
summer of 2013 but never married. The relationship suffered from substance abuse 
and domestic violence. Charlie was born in February 2014. The couple lived together 
for a month after Charlie’s birth, then separated. Following a domestic incident 
between petitioner and respondent on 4 March 2014 during which Charlie was 
present, the Dare County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated an 
assessment for child neglect. DSS recommended counseling and informed the parents 
that the child should have a sober caregiver at all times and should not be exposed to 
acts of domestic violence. DSS also responded to incidents of domestic violence in 
April and June 2014. 
¶ 3 
 
Following a 5 June 2014 incident, DSS made a safety resource arrangement 
with Charlie’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother who agreed that the 
minor child would stay in their home until DSS determined otherwise. DSS referred 
the parents to mental health and substance abuse counseling. Initially, the parents 
were not consistent with their counseling, were unable to maintain appropriate 
housing for an infant, failed to address issues related to domestic violence, and failed 
to demonstrate an ability to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the minor child.  
On 18 September 2014, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging the minor child was a 
neglected juvenile. By January 2015, petitioner resided with Charlie’s maternal 
grandmother. Respondent resided with his sister. Charlie continued to reside with 
his maternal grandfather and step-grandmother. Following a 28 January 2015 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
hearing, the trial court entered a dispositional order on 23 February 2015 in which it 
adjudicated Charlie a neglected juvenile and granted custody to the maternal 
grandfather and step-grandmother. The matter was converted to a Chapter 50 action,  
and DSS was relieved of further responsibility. The court ordered that petitioner and 
respondent have separate weekly supervised visitation for two hours. 
¶ 4 
 
Following the court’s 23 February 2015 dispositional order, petitioner 
“substantially changed her life.” She established a safe, stable, and appropriate 
residence and maintained a steady job which provided the means and ability to 
provide financially for the minor child. By April 2017, petitioner had provided for the 
child’s basic needs for over a year, and the child had been living with her for more 
than six months. With the support of maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, 
petitioner petitioned for custody of the minor child. Respondent was served with 
notice of the custody hearing but failed to appear or make any communication with 
the court regarding the matter. By order entered 12 April 2017, the trial court 
concluded that it was in the best interests of the minor child that petitioner be 
granted custody, and the court awarded petitioner sole legal and physical custody of 
the minor child. 
¶ 5 
 
On 6 November 2019, petitioner filed a petition for termination of respondent’s 
parental rights. Petitioner alleged that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s 
parental rights on grounds of neglect and abandonment. Petitioner alleged that 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
respondent had not seen the minor child since he was four months old and had not 
provided medical care or financial support for the child since he was one month old. 
Moreover, petitioner alleged that respondent has no relationship with the minor child 
and had not pursued a relationship since March 2014. 
¶ 6 
 
Respondent answered the petition to terminate his parental rights denying 
petitioner’s allegations regarding grounds to terminate his parental rights. The court 
appointed a guardian ad litem for the minor child on 22 January 2020. A hearing on 
the matter took place on 25 September 2020 during which the court heard testimony 
from petitioner, the maternal grandfather, the maternal grandmother, Charlie’s half-
sibling’s paternal grandmother, petitioner’s boyfriend, respondent, respondent’s 
girlfriend, and the guardian ad litem. On 5 October 2020, the trial court entered its 
order concluding that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights and 
that termination was in the best interests of the child. Respondent appeals. 
II. 
Analysis 
¶ 7 
 
Our Juvenile Code provides a two-stage process for terminating parental 
rights. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019).  At the initial or adjudicatory stage, the 
burden is on the petitioner to establish the existence of any ground for termination 
alleged under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.  
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e)–(f) (2019). “We review a trial court’s adjudication under 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109 ‘to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.’ ” In re 
C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). 
“[F]indings of fact are binding ‘where there is some evidence to support those findings, 
even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary.’ ” In re R.D., 376 
N.C. 244, 258 (2020) (quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. at 110–11). “Unchallenged 
findings are deemed to be supported by the evidence and are ‘binding on appeal.’”     
In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50, 53 (2020) (quoting 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 J.D.C.H., 
375 N.C. 335, 337 (2020) (quoting In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. at 19). 
¶ 8 
 
Respondent contends that the trial court erred by terminating his parental 
rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. Respondent does not 
challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, rather he argues the evidence presented 
does not support the trial court’s conclusions on either ground. 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. In re J.S., 374 N.C. 881, 815 (2020). 
¶ 9 
 
A court may terminate parental rights upon a finding that “[t]he parent has 
willfully abandoned the juvenile for at least six consecutive months immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition or motion[.]”  N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) (2019). “The 
most frequently approved definition is that abandonment imports any willful or 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
intentional conduct on the part of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego 
all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.”  Pratt v. Bishop, 
257 N.C. 486, 501 (1962); see also In re N.M.H., 375 N.C. 637, 642 (2020). “Whether 
a biological parent has a willful intent to abandon his child is a question of fact to be 
determined from the evidence.” In re B.C.B., 374 N.C. 32, 35 (2020) (quoting In re 
Adoption of Searle, 82 N.C. App. 273, 276 (1986)). “Although the trial court may 
consider a parent’s conduct outside the six-month window in evaluating a parent’s 
credibility and intentions, the ‘determinative’ period for adjudicating willful 
abandonment is the six consecutive months preceding the filing of the petition.” In re 
N.D.A., 373 N.C. 71, 77 (2019) (quoting In re D.E.M., 257 N.C. App. 618, 619 (2018)). 
“If a parent withholds his presence, his love, his care, the opportunity to display filial 
affection, and willfully neglects to lend support and maintenance, such parent 
relinquishes all parental claims and abandons the child.” In re J.D.C.H., 375 N.C. 
335, 338 (2020) (cleaned up). 
¶ 10 
 
Here, the determinative six-month period is from 6 May to 6 November 2019. 
In support of its conclusion that grounds exist to terminate respondent’s parental 
rights based on willful abandonment, the trial court made the following unchallenged 
findings of fact: 
13. 
The parties lived together for periods of time prior to 
the birth of the juvenile. They lived together for 
about a month after the birth of the juvenile at the 
home of Petitioner’s mother. There was domestic 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
violence and substance abuse issues in the 
relationship. [DSS] took non-secure custody of the 
juvenile and placed the juvenile with Petitioner’s 
father. The juvenile matter was converted to a 
Chapter 50 Order giving custody to the [minor 
child’s] maternal grandfather. Petitioner later filed 
a motion to modify that Chapter 50 Order and was 
granted custody as previously set forth. 
 
14. 
Respondent was slightly involved at birth. He 
attended at least one pre-natal appointment and 
was present at the birth. He helped to set up the 
juvenile’s nurse[r]y at Petitioner’s mother’s home. 
Once 
[DSS] 
became 
involved, 
Respondent’s 
involvement dwindled off and he was non-compliant 
with his case plan with the Department. 
 
15. 
Since the juvenile was one month old, the 
Respondent has provided no support, either 
monetary or in-kind and he has not paid for medical 
care nor attended any medical appointments for the 
juvenile. The Respondent last saw the juvenile when 
the child was 4–6 months old. Since the juvenile was 
one month old, he has purchased or provided no 
birthday gifts or Christmas gifts and has not 
acknowledged those holidays in any fashion for the 
minor child. 
 
16. 
Testifying on Petitioner’s behalf, her father and 
mother confirmed that Respondent only visited 
initially when the juvenile was living with 
Petitioner’s mother and that while the juvenile 
resided with Petitioner’s father, the Respondent did 
not visit. Both also confirmed that Respondent had 
provided no support, cards, or gifts that they were 
aware of and Respondent had never contacted either 
one of them to try to have contact with the juvenile. 
 
. . . . 
 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
18. 
The Respondent admittedly had a terrible addiction 
to opioids. His criminal record was introduced 
with[out] objection from Dare and Currituck 
Counties which showed a variety of criminal 
convictions 
involving 
drugs 
as 
well 
as 
a 
misdemeanor conviction for tampering with a motor 
vehicle and for resisting an officer. He was convicted 
in Virginia for felony possession with intent to sell 
and deliver a Schedule I substance, heroin. Between 
his local jail time and his prison time in Virginia, he 
was incarcerated from October 2016 to July 2019. He 
also was in jail in North Carolina for periods of time 
prior to that. 
 
19. 
There 
was 
conflicting 
testimony 
regarding 
Respondent’s contact with Petitioner while he was 
incarcerated. . . . [T]he Court finds that Respondent 
contacted Petitioner one time in December 2018. 
Petitioner asked Respondent to agree for the 
juvenile’s last name to be changed. Respondent 
disagreed and indicated he had a prison lawyer who 
told him all he had to do was file for custody when 
he was released and that he would get shared 
custody of the child and that he intended to do that. 
The parties argued and then hung up. 
 
20. 
Despite indicating he was aware he could file an 
action to receive custody, Respondent has never filed 
an action to receive custody or visitation. 
 
21. 
Respondent was released from prison in July 2019. 
Petitioner learned that he was out of prison via 
Facebook as he did not contact her or try to see the 
juvenile. 
Petitioner 
contacted 
Respondent’s 
grandmother to determine if he was out of prison 
and then Respondent contacted Petitioner from the 
grandmother’s phone. Petitioner again asked him to 
agree to change the child’s last name. He refused 
and indicated his intent to see the juvenile. Yet, he 
never followed through in any way with this intent 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
prior to the filing of the termination of parental 
rights action. 
 
22. 
While Respondent was incarcerated, Petitioner kept 
in contact with his grandmother. She visited with 
the juvenile on occasion, and sent gifts and cards 
signed by her on the juvenile’s birthdays and 
Christmas. On one occasion when she was unable to 
see the child, she sent a card and a money card so he 
could buy a present for himself. She never indicated 
to Petitioner that the money card, gifts, or cards 
were from Respondent. Although Respondent 
asserts that the gifts and money provided by his 
grandmother were from him, there is no evidence to 
support such an assertion. Thus, the Court finds 
those items to be from the grandmother. 
 
23. 
Respondent had a conduit to send money, cards, 
letters or gifts to the juvenile from himself. He could 
have written letters to the child to show his interest 
and even if Respondent would not have accepted the 
letters, his grandmother could have saved them to 
prove his interest. He failed entirely to do anything 
to support or show interest in the juvenile. 
 
24. 
Petitioner never filed a child support action but she 
also never told Respondent or his grandmother that 
she would not accept support, money, or gifts for the 
juvenile. Both parties testified that Petitioner 
accused Respondent of never having supported the 
juvenile and having told Respondent that if he had 
gifts for the child, he should send them to him. 
Respondent failed to send support, money or gifts. 
 
25. 
Based upon Respondent’s lack of involvement 
throughout the juvenile’s life, his apparent lack of 
interest during his incarceration and his failure to 
affirmatively do anything to assert his parental 
rights before the filing of this action, there is a 
reasonable probability that his lack of involvement 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
would continue. 
 
26. 
Petitioner did not encourage Respondent to have 
contact with the juvenile. She told him to forget 
about the juvenile. Petitioner tried to keep in contact 
with Respondent’s sister but she was rebuffed. 
Respondent’s father died prior to Respondent’s 
incarceration and his mother was never involved 
with the juvenile. Petitioner did keep in touch with 
Respondent’s grandmother . . . . 
 
27. 
Between the time the parties spoke in August 2019 
and filing of the action in November 2019, 
Respondent did not attempt to see the juvenile. He 
provided no support of gifts. He showed no further 
interest. He did not file an action to establish a 
relationship with the juvenile. After the termination 
of parental rights action was filed, Respondent was 
served and he established his relationship with his 
court appointed attorney. He began contacting 
Petitioner in early 2020. 
 
28. 
The parties set up a meeting in March 2020 because 
Respondent wanted Petitioner to see for herself that 
he had changed. . . . Respondent did not show up at 
the meeting set up between the parties. Thereafter, 
Petitioner answered few of Respondent’s texts and 
he did not call her. Petitioner eventually blocked 
Respondent’s number on her phone. Petitioner did 
not encourage Respondent’s desire to have contact 
with the juvenile and did not allow such. (All of this 
exchange occurred months after the termination 
action was filed.) 
 
29. 
The juvenile does not know who the Respondent is. 
He has not seen his father since he was 4–6 months 
old. From that time until the Respondent was 
incarcerated, Respondent did not attempt to contact 
the juvenile or the Petitioner and showed no 
interest. There is no bond between the Respondent 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
and the juvenile. The juvenile considers Petitioner’s 
boyfriend to be his father as he has raised him since 
he was 10 months old. 
 
30. 
The Petitioner lives . . . at the address listed on the 
petition 
for 
termination 
of 
parental 
rights. 
Respondent claims to have only learned her address 
at the hearing but admitted was served with the 
petition on November 7, 2019 and that he read the 
petition (which contained Petitioner’s address) . . . .  
 
¶ 11 
 
Respondent argues that the findings do not support a conclusion of his 
abandonment for three reasons. First, while he did not initiate adversarial legal 
proceedings to force petitioner to allow respondent to see the minor child, respondent 
took steps toward that goal. As stated in his brief to this Court, respondent called 
petitioner and said “(1) he wanted to be involved in Charlie’s life, (2) he was going to 
see Charlie, and (3) he was going to be a father to Charlie.” 
¶ 12 
 
Second, after petitioner refused to allow respondent to see the minor child, she 
asked respondent to sign papers allowing her to change the minor child’s name. 
However, as respondent contends, petitioner could have petitioned to change the 
minor child’s name without his consent if she believed respondent had abandoned the 
minor child. By asking respondent’s consent to change the minor child’s name, 
respondent contends, petitioner evidenced a belief that respondent did not abandon 
the minor child. 
¶ 13 
 
Third, respondent refused to sign papers allowing petitioner to change the 
minor child’s name. In sum, respondent argues that this is not a case of a parent 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
doing nothing for six months preceding the filing of a termination action, but one of 
a parent who asserted his intent to be a father to his son without aggressively 
inserting himself into his son’s life immediately after completing three years in 
prison. We disagree. 
¶ 14 
 
“[I]f a parent withholds his presence, his love, his care, the opportunity to 
display filial affection, and wil[l]fully neglects to lend support and maintenance, such 
parent relinquishes all parental claims and abandons the child.” Pratt, 257 N.C. at 
501; see also In re Apa, 59 N.C. App. 322, 324 (1982) (affirming an order terminating 
parental rights of the father based on abandonment where the court’s unchallenged 
findings provided that “except for an abandoned attempt to negotiate visitation and 
support, respondent ‘made no other significant attempts to establish a relationship 
with [the minor child] or obtain rights of visitation with [the minor child].’ ”). 
¶ 15 
 
Here, the court’s findings demonstrate that respondent had not seen the minor 
child, born in February 2014, since the minor child was four-to-six months old. Since 
the child was four-to-six months old but prior to respondent’s three-year 
incarceration, respondent did not contact the minor child. While incarcerated, 
respondent had a conduit to the minor child through respondent’s grandmother but 
nevertheless failed to send money, gifts, cards, or letters to the minor child. Upon his 
release from prison and prior to the filing of the termination petition, respondent 
made no attempt to communicate with the minor child. Despite repeated statements 
IN RE C.K.I. 
2021-NCSC-131 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
that he intended to petition the courts for custody and visitation, respondent failed 
to do so. These facts evidence the lack of care, support, and maintenance that indicate 
abandonment. Accordingly, we uphold the trial court’s conclusion that respondent 
willfully abandoned the minor child and clear, cogent, and convincing evidence 
supports the termination of respondent’s parental rights. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(7). 
¶ 16 
 
Respondent does not challenge the trial court’s dispositional determination 
that it was in the minor child’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be 
terminated. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s 
parental rights. 
AFFIRMED.