IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCCOA-335

No. COA21-608

Filed 17 May 2022

Guilford County, Nos. 10 JA 158, 10 JA 159, 15 JA 141, 19 JA 264

IN THE MATTER OF:

N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

Appeal by Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father from order entered 2 

August 2021 by Judge Angela C. Foster in Guilford County District Court. Heard in 

the Court of Appeals 26 April 2022.

Mercedes O. Chut for Petitioner-Appellee Guilford County Department of Social 

Services.

Stam Law Firm, PLLC, by R. Daniel Gibson, for Respondent-Appellant Mother.

Richard Croutharmel for Respondent-Appellant Father.

Keith Karlsson for Guardian ad Litem.

COLLINS, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father appeal the trial court’s order 

adjudicating one of their children abused and neglected and their three other children

neglected, ordering the children to remain in the legal and physical custody of the 

Guilford County Department of Social Services, ordering the parents to comply with 

the case plan to effect reunification, and maintaining the suspension of the parents’ 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

visitation rights with all four juveniles. We affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 Mother and Father are the parents of four children: Naomi, Timothy, Nancy, 

and Cameron.

1 Mother and Father are not married, and Father does not live in the 

home with Mother and the four children, but he does visit the home daily and cooks 

for the family members. In 2015, Nancy was adjudicated neglected, placed in foster 

care, and eventually returned to her parents’ custody in March 2017. 

¶ 3 On 27 February 2019, Guilford County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) 

received a report stating that: Nancy was abused and neglected; Mother did not have 

a bond with Nancy and punishes and mistreats Nancy for bonding with a white foster 

mother when she was in foster care; Nancy “may be autistic, being that she does not 

cry when hit by [Mother]”; Nancy was being “burned by a flat iron and cigarettes, 

being locked in her room all day and she is only let out to go to the bathroom where 

she is left sitting for hours at a time”; Nancy was not being fed for days; and Mother 

is “believed to be an avid heroin user and keeps the drugs and the straw inside her 

[bra] and that she sells drugs as well.” 

¶ 4 That same day, a DSS social worker examined Nancy and reported that Nancy 

was very small for her age, weighing only 19 pounds at the age of four. The social 

 

1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the minor children.
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

worker noticed that there were two small scars on the top of Nancy’s shoulder and 

burn marks on her body. The social worker also spoke with the other three children, 

who disclosed that Nancy “is left in her bedroom all the time and would eat there” 

and “want[s] to come downstairs, but she was not allowed to.” 

¶ 5 On 1 March 2019, DSS received a second report alleging that Nancy was 

receiving improper medical and remedial care, had not been seen by a doctor since 

November 2016, and had not gained any weight since returning to Mother’s custody 

when she was approximately 18-24 months old. That day, Nancy had been admitted 

to the hospital for severe malnutrition “and there were also concerns as to her having 

significant developmental delays.” Nancy was diagnosed with “Severe Protein 

Malnourishment, Failure to Thrive, Developmental Delays and Norovirus.” She 

gained four pounds while in the hospital and was eventually released into the care of 

her paternal grandmother. Mother stated, “I’ve been starving my child,” but said she 

never meant to cause Nancy any harm. 

¶ 6 Following Nancy’s hospitalization, a DSS social worker spoke twice with 

Naomi and once with Timothy. Naomi stated that Nancy was “treated like a 

prisoner,” that Father cooked food for Nancy and Mother brought it up to Nancy’s 

room and they did not know what happens after the food is taken upstairs to Nancy, 

that Nancy was left alone on the toilet for hours at a time, and that Nancy had not 

left the home in 2019 until the hospitalization on 1 March 2019. She also stated that 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

she witnessed Mother and Mother’s friends drink and “have needles with a ‘white 

powdery stuff’” and that Mother told her they “use water to inject it and it helps 

[Mother] stay awake.” Timothy also stated that he was “unsure if Nancy was getting 

the food” that Mother took upstairs, that Nancy “was not allowed outside of her 

bedroom unless she was going to the bathroom,” and that Mother left Nancy on the 

toilet for hours at a time, and one time forgot Nancy was there. 

¶ 7 DSS filed juvenile petitions on 8 March 2019 alleging that Nancy was abused 

and neglected and that Cameron was neglected. On 12 March 2019, DSS filed 

petitions alleging that Naomi and Timothy were neglected. The trial court ordered 

forensic examinations of Naomi and Timothy, and it ordered Mother and Father to 

have no contact with Nancy and Cameron. All four children were placed into an 

emergency placement with their paternal grandmother. The forensic examinations 

took place in April 2019. Sometime around 11 May 2019, Mother was charged with 

felony child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury and Father was charged with aiding 

and abetting felony child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury. 

¶ 8 In July 2019, the trial court continued the matter for various reasons and 

ordered that neither parent have visitation. The matter was continued again in 

September 2019 when Mother requested to represent herself, signed a waiver of 

counsel, and stated that she would be hiring her own counsel; her court-appointed 

attorney was released. The matter was continued again in December 2019 when 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

Mother stated that she was no longer able to retain private counsel; the trial court 

appointed new counsel for Mother. Mother’s appointed counsel sought and was 

granted another continuance in January 2020 to prepare for the case. There were 

additional continuances granted throughout 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 

but the trial court found on 19 January 2021 that it had continued the matter several 

times at the request of Mother and that “this shall be the final continuance allowed 

at the request of [Mother].” The matter was continued twice more in early 2021 

because the attorneys were not available. 

¶ 9 The adjudication hearing was held on 26 May 2021, during which Nancy was 

adjudicated abused because her parents created or allowed to be created a 

substantive risk of serious physical injury to her, and all four children were 

adjudicated neglected as they did not receive proper care, supervision, and discipline 

from their parents and lived in an environment injurious to their welfare. The trial 

court proceeded directly to the dispositional hearing and found that it was in the best 

interests of the children to remain in DSS custody and remain in the kinship 

placement with their grandmother. The trial court maintained the suspension of 

visitation as to both parents. Mother and Father timely appealed.

II. Discussion

A. Mother’s Appeal

1. Reasonable Efforts
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

¶ 10 Mother first argues that because she “took responsibility for her mistakes and 

was willing to correct them, the trial court erred in concluding that DSS made 

reasonable efforts to prevent placement.”

¶ 11 The reasonable efforts determination is a conclusion of law because it 

“require[s] the exercise of judgment.” In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510-11, 491 

S.E.2d 672, 676 (1997). “Our review of a trial court’s conclusion of law is limited to 

whether they are supported by the findings of fact.” Id. at 511, 491 S.E.2d at 676

(citing In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246, 253 (1984)). 

Unchallenged findings of fact are “deemed to be supported by the evidence and are 

binding on appeal.” In re J.C.M.J.C., 268 N.C. App. 47, 51, 834 S.E.2d 670, 673-74 

(2019) (citation omitted).

¶ 12 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a3) states that an order shall contain 

specific findings as to whether the department has made 

reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement of the 

juvenile. . . . The court may find that efforts to prevent the 

need for the juvenile’s placement were precluded by an 

immediate threat of harm to the juvenile. A finding that 

reasonable efforts were not made by [DSS] shall not 

preclude the entry of an order authorizing the juvenile’s 

placement when the court finds that placement is 

necessary for the protection of the juvenile. 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a3) (2021). 

¶ 13 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(18) defines reasonable efforts as the “diligent use of 

preventative or reunification services by [DSS] when a juvenile’s remaining at home 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

or returning home is consistent with achieving a safe, permanent home for the 

juvenile within a reasonable period of time.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(18) (2021).

Additionally, while our statutes do not include a definitive list of the services which 

may be provided as a part of reasonable efforts, there is a

federal regulation setting forth a nonexclusive list of 

services which may satisfy the reasonable efforts 

requirement. . . . i.e., crisis counseling, individual and 

family counseling, services to unmarried parents, mental 

health counseling, drug and alcohol abuse counseling, 

homemaker services, day care, emergency shelters, 

vocational counseling, emergency caretaker . . . .

In re DM, 211 N.C. App. 382, 386, 712 S.E.2d 355, 357 (2011) (quoting In re Helms, 

127 N.C. App. at 512 n. 3, 491 S.E.2d at 677 n. 3).

¶ 14 Here, Mother does not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact; they 

are thus binding on appeal. The trial court’s relevant findings of fact include, inter 

alia, that:

32. On March 12, 2019, the juveniles were placed in a court 

approved kinship placement with their paternal 

grandmother, Annie McClenton. . . .

33. [Timothy] celebrated his 14th birthday on May 16, 

2020. On July 13, 2020, [Timothy] completed the Casey 

Life Skills Assessment and his initial Transitional Living 

Plan was created with him. [Timothy’s] Transitional 

Living Plan has been updated every 90 days.

. . .

50. On August 20, 2019 a referral was completed to Family 

Solutions. On August 26, 2019, Megan Oaks with Family 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

Solutions, confirmed the referral was received and that she 

will reach out to the caregiver to schedule. . . . On 

September 16, 2019, a referral was completed to Saved 

Foundation. On September 21, 2019, [Cameron] completed 

a Comprehensive Clinical Assessment with Rhonda 

Blackburn. [Cameron] was diagnosed with Generalized 

Anxiety Disorder and outpatient therapy was 

recommended. [Cameron] participated in therapy with Ms. 

Blackburn and was successfully discharged on November 

25, 2019.

. . . .

52. The mother entered into a case plan with the 

Department on January 28, 2020. The current case plan 

contains the following components:

Parenting Skills: The mother agrees to 

participate in a parenting psychological 

assessment and comply with any 

recommendations; successfully complete the 

Parenting Assessment Training and Education 

(PATE) Program; attend all visits, as 

scheduled, and comply with the visitation 

expectations once allowed by the court; and 

enter into a voluntary support agreement with 

Child Support Enforcement. On January 28, 

2020, the Department submitted a referral to the 

Guilford County Department of Health and Human 

Services Clinical Team for the mother to participate 

in a parenting psychological assessment and PATE 

Classes. On that date, the mother indicated to the 

Department that she was not willing to participate 

in a psychological with the Department. It was 

explained to her that the Department would pay for 

the assessment [if] she uses a Department Clinician; 

however, the mother declined indicating that she 

will hire a clinician to complete the assessment. The 

mother was asked that she provide the Department 

with the contact information of the Clinician of her 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

choosing, so that they can be properly vetted. It was 

explained to the mother that any delay in identifying 

a clinician could be a delay in reunifying with her 

children. The mother participated in a parenting 

psychological assessment through the Department 

in 2015 for her previous foster care assessment. As 

of today’s date, the mother has not completed a 

recent parenting psychological assessment. The 

Department emailed PATE facilitator, Demetria 

Powell-Harrison on February 23, 2020 to follow up 

on the status of the mother’s referral. An update 

was requested from Ms. Powell-Harrison on July 20, 

2020. Ms. Powell-Harrison reported that she mailed 

a copy of the pre-test to the mother to complete on 

May 19, 2020 and the mother was scheduled to be 

seen virtually on May 26, 2020. However, the 

mother claimed that she did not receive the pre-test 

or the invitation to the virtual meeting. The 

appointment was rescheduled for June 9, 2020. The 

mother participated in the appointment on June 9, 

2020; however, she talked about COVID-19 and 

reported that she had not finished the pre-test. 

Another appointment was scheduled for June 10, 

2020; however, the mother did not participate. On 

July 21, 2020, Ms. Powell-Harrison reported to the 

Department that she spoke with the mother on this 

date and the mother advised that she was not going 

to complete the PATE due to her attorney advising 

her not to do so because it will be admitting that she 

is guilty. On January 21, 2021, Ms. Powell-Harrison 

reported that she has not had any contact with the 

mother since July 21, 2020. The Department 

requested an update from Ms. Powell-Harrison; 

however, has received no response as of May 17, 

2021.

Substance Abuse: The mother agrees to 

participate in a substance abuse assessment 

and follow all recommendations; refrain from 

the use of any substances, legal or illegal, 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

including alcohol, for the purposes of 

intoxication. If pain medication is needed, the 

mother agrees to request a non-narcotic 

medication; and participate in random drug 

and alcohol screens at the request of the 

Department. On January 28, 2020, the 

Department made a referral to the Department’s 

Clinician for a Substance Abuse Assessment for the 

mother. The mother declined services from the 

Department, indicating that she will find an[] 

independent clinician. The mother agreed to provide 

the identification and contact information of the 

clinician of her choosing for the purposes of vetting 

and was explained that any delay in providing this 

information can result in a delay of reunification 

with the juveniles. As of today’s date, the mother 

has not provided any identifying information as to 

any clinical services. On January 28, 2020, the 

mother denied any recent illegal drug use although

she admitted that she used marijuana when she was 

a teenager. She also denied taking any medication 

that is not prescribed to her. However, she alleged 

she is prescribed Percocet’s for back pain and a 

hernia by Dr. Williams, but she is transferring her 

care to Bethany’s Pain Clinic. The Department 

requested that the mother sign consents for Dr. 

Williams and Bethany’s Pain Clinic. [Mother] has 

not provided any signed consents as of today’s 

hearing. The Department requested that the 

mother participate in a random drug screen on the 

following dates:

 November 1, 2019 – did not submit

 January 28, 2020 – submit by 12 pm, January 29, 

2020. The mother reported that she would test 

positive for Percocet’s only. Did not submit.

 April 1, 2020 – Governor’s state wide stay at 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

home order put in place on March 27, 2020. The 

Department was advised that Social Workers 

should not direct parents to report to drug labs 

for the purpose of submitting drug screens while 

the order was in effect.

 June 10, 2020 – Social Worker Supervisor Haik

received a voicemail message from [Mother] on 

June 9, 2020 at 5:16pm. [Mother’s] speech was 

difficult to understand – slurring and at times 

incoherent. Social Worker Supervisor Haik 

called [Mother] and left a voicemail message 

requesting that she complete a random drug 

screen no later than 11:25am on June 11, 2020; 

did not submit.

 July 22, 2020 – The Department mailed [Mother] 

six random drug screen forms to be used for 

future drug screen requests.

 August 4, 2020 – submit by August 5, 2020. 

[Mother] advised that she is not going to do a 

drug screen and she does not know why the 

Department continues to ask her to go. Did not 

submit.

 August 6, 2020 – The mother’s attorney, Jaren 

Dickerson, reported that [Mother] has refrained 

from the use of any substances, legal or illegal, 

including alcohol, for the purposes of 

intoxication. 

 October 6, 2020 – Request complete drug screen 

within 24 hours. [Mother] responded “I’m not 

doing shit or answering questions” then 

disconnected the call. Did not submit.

 November 19, 2020 – Requested complete a 

random drug screen within 24 hours. After 

making this request, [Mother] disconnected the 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

call. Did not submit.

 January 21, 2021 – Requested complete a 

random drug screen within 24 hours. After 

making this request, [Mother] asked Social 

Worker Boyd to stop contacting her and she will 

not do anything until the case is adjudicated. Did 

not submit.

 February 26, 2021 – the Department contacted 

[Mother], but the phone recording stated to 

contact her at [] due to her phone not working. 

Social Worker Boyd called and spoke with 

[Mother]. She asked who was calling, Social 

Worker told her name and Title and she hung up 

the phone. Did not submit.

 In May 2020, the Department received 

information, from a source who requested to 

remain anonymous reporting that he had 

personal knowledge of [Mother] and [Father] 

dealing drugs and pills through the mail to South 

Carolina. The anonymous source claimed that 

[Father] buys prescription medication from other 

people (pain pills, Percocet, Hydrocodone, 

Oxymorphone). The source claims that [Mother] 

pays half of the street cost to buy them in bulk 

and then she sells them to the residents in 

Hampton Homes. The source made additional 

claims that [Mother] and [Father] have been 

allowed to visit with the children since they have 

been placed with Annie McClenton.

Domestic Violence/Family Relationships: 

the mother will not violate the terms of any 

new or existing 50-B protective orders; 

successfully complete the Domestic 

Violence Intervention Program 

(hereinafter “DVIP”) for Women at Family 

Service of the Piedmont (hereinafter 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

“FSOP”); the mother will terminate any 

existing relationships that involve 

domestic violence, when it is safe to do so; 

and agree to notice the Department of any 

incidents of domestic violence. On January 

28, 2020, the mother denied any Domestic 

Violence since 2013; however, she agrees to 

participate in an assessment with FSOP to 

determine her need, if any for Domestic Violence 

services. The mother stated that she and 

[Father] are no longer in a relationship and they 

have not been in a relationship since prior to the 

children coming into foster care. [Mother] has 

not provided any information about her 

participation in services through FSOP or any 

other agency. On March 22, 2021, Social Worker 

Boyd contacted FSOP and left a voice message for 

Gabrielle Marcoccia, DVIP group leader. On May 

19, 2021, a voicemail was left for Audrey Sa, 

Adult victim coordinator. On that same date, 

Audrey Sa returned the call to the Department 

indicating that she will check to see if the mother 

is enrolled in any classes and has a release on 

file, then she will send the Department an email 

with her findings. On June 12, 2020, [Mother] 

reported the following to Social Worker 

Supervisor Haik:

- I’ve never cut him [Father]. He cut 

himself.

- He beat me up so bad that day he knew he 

was going to go to jail.

- There was an incident on Valentine’s Day 

this year {2020}, [Father] jumped on me 

and tried to choke me. There was a guy 

that I let stay in my house – helping him 

out – I kicked him out and he was staying 

in the woods – he ended up in the hospital. 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

It was out of the blue. He cannot have an 

adult conversation.

- He is going to end up killing me or I am 

going to kill him.

- He chased me from Greensboro to 

Randolph County in my car – bumping my 

car. There was a guy driving my car. The 

guy was the same guy that saw [Father] 

with my kids at Annie’s house.

- He keeps coming back around and acting 

like we’re together.

- If I am not with him, he wants me to 

suffer.

On August 6, 2020, the mother’s attorney, Jaren 

Dickerson, reported that [Mother] has not 

violated the terms of any 50B Protective Orders. 

Attorney Dickerson also reported that there have 

been no new incidents of domestic violence since 

the mother entered into her case plan and she is 

not in a relationship that involves domestic 

violence. According to the 911 Log on February 

8, 2021 there was a call to the home of [Mother]

at [] for shots fired at them in their vehicle. On 

March 5, 2021, Social Worker Boyd completed a 

community visit to the home and saw the Volvo 

that was identified by John McClenton as the car 

[Mother] drives. There was a Volvo outside of the 

residence when Social Worker arrived. Social 

Worker observed that the driver’s side tail light 

was missing from the vehicle. On March 22, 

2021, social worker spoke with Chris Patterson, 

Chief Administrator about a possible police 

report. She stated that 2021-0208106 is the case 

report number for the incident. On March 22, 

2021, Social Worker requested the 911 log for the 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

home of [Mother] which was received.

Mental Health: the mother will participate 

in a mental health assessment and/or 

psychiatric assessment to determine her 

need for mental health services and comply 

with all recommendations; take any 

medication that is prescribed to her in the 

manner that it is prescribed. On January 28, 

2020, the mother reported that she is not 

currently participating in any mental health 

services and she has never been diagnosed with 

any mental health disorder. She also reported 

that she is not currently prescribed any 

medication for mental health reasons. Social 

Work Supervisor Haik inquired if the mother will 

participate in an assessment at FSOP or 

Monarch to determine her need, if any for mental 

health services. The mother reported that she 

probably needs the service, but she is not sure if 

she is willing to participate in an assessment or 

service. The Department discussed with the 

mother that FSOP and Monarch are options for 

this service and both providers have walk-in 

hours to initiate services. On May 7, 2020, the 

mother reported that she has not participated in 

any services due to COVD-19. The mother was 

advised by that Monarch is able to work with 

clients via telephone or virtually. The mother 

stated that she will contact Monarch so that they 

can document her thoughts. As of today’s date, 

the mother has not provided any information 

regarding her participation in mental health 

services.

. . . .

65. The barriers to achieving reunification are: 

 CPS history including prior foster care cases 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

 severity of medical neglect for [Nancy]

 the mother executed an Out of Home Family 

Services agreement; however she has declined to 

work with [DSS], contracted providers and elected to 

hire independent providers. The mother has not 

engaged in any services

 both parents have pending criminal charges in 

relation to the abuse and neglect that [Nancy] 

suffered

 The father has incurred additional criminal charges 

since the children have been in foster care

 [Father] has failed to admit that he has been the 

perpetrator of domestic violence despite the criminal 

convictions for Felony Assault by Strangulation and 

Assault on a Female

 The parents have provided conflicting information 

about the status of their relationship and 

engagement in domestic violence 

 Both parents fail to acknowledge the abuse/neglect 

that the juveniles have suffered

 Both parents fail to acknowledge their role in the 

abuse/neglect that the juveniles have suffered.

66. Since the filing of the Petition and assumption of 

custody of the juvenile, [DSS] has made the following 

reunification efforts:

 Foster Care Case Management

 Child Forensic Evaluation

 Kinship assessment and placement

 CFT meetings
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

 Presentation of Out of Home Family Services 

Agreement

 Referrals of Services for the parents

 Record requests for parent’s treatment providers

 Contact with the parents

 Review of CPS records

66. The above-referenced efforts are reasonable.

¶ 15 These unchallenged findings support the trial court’s conclusion of law that 

DSS “made reasonable efforts to prevent the need for placement, taking into 

consideration the juveniles’ health and safety as the paramount concern, and the 

Department made and should continue to make reasonable efforts toward 

reunification.” See In re Rholetter, 162 N.C. App. 653, 662, 592 S.E.2d 237, 242-43 

(2004). 

¶ 16 Mother further argues that Nancy was “not at an imminent risk of harm” 

because the petition alleged abuse and “the only evidence of physical harm to Nancy” 

were hearsay statements made by Naomi and Timothy. Mother argues that “the trial 

court erred by admitting those statements because they were hearsay that did not 

fall within an exception.” However, the trial court’s unchallenged findings show that 

a DSS social worker observed that Nancy was “very small” for her age and only 

weighed 19 pounds at the age of four, she had “two small scars on the top of [Nancy’s] 

right shoulder, her skin was very dry, and there were burn marks observed on her.” 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

Additionally, the findings show that Nancy was admitted to the hospital and 

diagnosed with severe protein malnourishment, failure to thrive, developmental 

delays, and Norovirus and that “[a]ll medical testing results were consistent that 

[Nancy] was suffering from severe malnutrition deficits.” These findings support the 

trial court’s conclusion that DSS made reasonable efforts to prevent placement while 

taking into consideration Nancy’s health and safety as the paramount concern.

2. Due Process 

¶ 17 Mother next argues that (1) the denial of her motion to continue denied her 

effective counsel and violated her due process and (2) the trial court’s commentary 

and questions denied Mother an impartial hearing. 

¶ 18 First, Mother misrepresents what took place at the hearing, as Mother never 

made a motion to continue. At the beginning of the adjudicatory hearing, Mother’s 

court-appointed attorney informed the trial court that Mother did not want him to be 

her attorney for the hearing or moving forward and Mother confirmed that she 

wished to release her attorney and represent herself at the hearing. The trial court 

then engaged in a colloquy with Mother about her choice to proceed pro se; Mother 

confirmed and stated, “Yes. I feel like that’s in my best interest.” The trial court 

informed Mother of how the hearing would be conducted and confirmed with Mother 

again that she understood the process; Mother confirmed that she understood and

replied, “Awesome.” 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

¶ 19 At the beginning of the dispositional hearing, the trial court and Mother again 

engaged in a discussion of whether she would represent herself or whether she would 

like to retain her court-appointed attorney for assistance. The trial court told Mother 

that she would not be getting additional time, and Mother stated to the trial court 

that she was “not asking for extra time.” When the trial court stated that it would 

not grant a continuance in the future unless there was an exceptional circumstance, 

Mother replied, “You know, you misunderstood me,” and then she clearly stated that 

she was ready to go forward with disposition. As Mother did not make a motion to 

continue, the trial court could not have erred by denying her motion. Accordingly, 

the trial court did not deny her effective counsel or violate her due process rights.

¶ 20 We next address Mother’s argument that the trial court’s commentary and 

questions denied her an impartial hearing. Mother argues that the trial court

“violated her constitutional rights” by “denying [her] due process by denying her a 

fundamentally fair hearing.” We note that Mother did not raise this issue at the trial 

court and has thus failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal. As Mother failed 

to present “to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific 

grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make,” as required by N.C. R. 

App. P. 10(a)(1), she has waived appellate review of the issue. See In re A.B., 272 

N.C. App. 13, 16, 844 S.E.2d 368, 371 (2020) (determining that “mother’s failure to 

raise a timely objection” was a failure to properly preserve the issue for appeal and
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

“thus waives the issue on appeal”).

¶ 21 Furthermore, even if we did consider Mother’s argument, it is without merit. 

Trial courts have “broad discretionary power to supervise and control the trial” which 

we will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Mack, 161 N.C. App. 595, 

598, 589 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003) (citation omitted). This Court has held that even 

“extremely pointed” comments by the trial court did not “show a preexisting bias 

against plaintiff or a prejudging of her case” when its opinions and remarks were 

based upon evidence at trial. Hancock v. Hancock, 122 N.C. App. 518, 528, 471 S.E.2d 

415, 421 (1996). 

¶ 22 Mother contends that various remarks by the trial court showed a bias against 

her, but we disagree. Our review of the record shows that the trial court’s remarks, 

even if considered “pointed,” were made to all parties, including a DSS social worker 

who testified at the hearing, and not just Mother. Moreover, the comments pertained 

to the proceedings in her case and were based on the evidence it heard during the 

hearing; the trial court’s comments did not show a bias against her or a prejudging of 

her case. Hancock, 122 N.C. App. at 528, 471 S.E.2d at 421.

3. Visitation

¶ 23 Mother lastly argues that “the trial court had discretion to grant [Mother] 

visitation. But it believed it did not, so it erred by denying [Mother’s] visitation.” 

¶ 24 We review disposition orders for abuse of discretion only. In re CM, 183 N.C. 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

App. 207, 215, 644 S.E.2d 588, 595 (2007). “A trial court may be reversed for abuse 

of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not 

have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re J.B., 172 N.C. App. 1, 14, 616 

S.E.2d 264, 272 (2005) (citation omitted). 

¶ 25 “An order that . . . continues the juvenile’s placement outside the home shall

provide for visitation that is in the best interests of the juvenile consistent with the 

juvenile’s health and safety, including no visitation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B–905.1(a)

(2021). The order must establish a visitation plan for parents unless the trial court 

finds “that the parent has forfeited their right to visitation or that it is in the child’s 

best interest to deny visitation.” In re T.H., 232 N.C. App. 16, 34, 753 S.E.2d 207, 

219 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has previously held 

that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying visitation when the “Mother 

was awaiting trial on criminal charges for her alleged [] abuse” of her child and when

“the court received evidence that Mother remained subject to a no contact order in 

her criminal case.” In re T.W., 250 N.C. App. 68, 78, 796 S.E.2d 792, 798 (2016).

¶ 26 While Mother’s argument is not clear, we construe her argument to be that the 

trial court’s remarks from the bench indicate that it acted under a misapprehension 

of law when “it believed it lacked discretion to grant [Mother] visitation.” Mother 

specifically notes that the trial court stated that “there cannot be any visitation due 

to what’s set forth by superior court” and claims that this misapprehension of law 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

constitutes an abuse of discretion. However, we do not construe the trial court’s 

remarks as an indication that it acted under a misapprehension of law, particularly 

in light of its unchallenged findings of fact which are binding on appeal.

¶ 27 The trial court made the following relevant findings of fact:

53. [Mother] does not have any court ordered visitation 

with the juveniles. Neither the Department nor the 

Guardian ad Litem are recommending a change in the 

visitation. It is not in the juveniles’ best interests to have 

visitation with the mother as it would be contrary to the 

health and safety of the juveniles.

. . . . 

56. The mother has pending criminal charges in Randolph 

County as follows: Unsafe Movement (2counts); DWLR Not 

Impaired Revocation (2 counts) with a pending trial date of 

June 14, 2021; and Child Abuse in which the last court date 

was held on April 22, 2021. The Child Abuse charge is 

related to the allegations contained in the Petition. . . .

. . . .

63. On March 17, 2021, ADA Thompson informed Social 

Worker Boyd that she is preparing plea offers and 

discovery for the Felony Child Abuse case. She is moving 

forward to fully prosecute [Mother]. . . .

¶ 28 The trial court then concluded as law that it was “not in the best interests of 

the juveniles to have visitation with the mother or father pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 7B-905.1.” As the trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusion of law support 

that it was not in the best interests of the children to see Mother, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant visitation to Mother. See In re T.H., 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

232 N.C. App. at 34, 753 S.E.2d at 219.

B. Father’s Appeal

1. Visitation

¶ 29 Father first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it suspended 

Father’s visitation with the children “because the evidence failed to support the 

suspension of his visits with those children.”

¶ 30 We review disposition orders for abuse of discretion only. In re CM, 183 N.C. 

App. at 215, 644 S.E.2d at 595. “A trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion 

only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the 

result of a reasoned decision.” In re J.B., 172 N.C. App. at 14, 616 S.E.2d at 272 

(citation omitted). Unchallenged findings of fact are “deemed to be supported by the

evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re J.C.M.J.C., 268 N.C. App. at 51, 834 

S.E.2d at 673-74 (citation omitted).

¶ 31 A disposition order must establish a visitation plan for parents unless the trial 

court finds “that the parent has forfeited their right to visitation or that it is in the 

child’s best interest to deny visitation.” In re T.H., 232 N.C. App. at 34, 753 S.E.2d 

at 219 (quotation marks and citation omitted). An order denying visitation must 

contain sufficient findings to explain why visitation is not in the child’s best interests. 

In re N.K., 274 N.C. App. 5, 11, 851 S.E.2d 389, 394 (2020). This Court has affirmed 

orders denying visitation when parents have failed to comply with mental health and 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

substance abuse treatment services. See In re T.W. And this Court has recognized 

that a parent’s pending criminal charge can justify a denial of visitation where the 

charge arose from the alleged abuse of the parent’s child. Id. at 78, 796 S.E.2d at 798.

¶ 32 Father challenges portions of finding of fact 64; the remaining unchallenged 

findings are binding on appeal. The trial court’s relevant, unchallenged findings of 

fact include:

27. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the juvenile 

[Nancy] is ADJUDICATED ABUSED, as the parents 

created or allowed to be created a substantive risk of 

serious physical injury to the juvenile by other than 

accidental means. In addition, the parents have created or 

allowed to be created serious emotional damage to the 

juvenile. Testimony was uncontroverted that the juvenile 

was diagnosed with severe malnourishment, failure to 

thrive with significant cognitive delays and non-verbal 

issues. [Nancy] gained four pounds during her 

hospitalization and it was not medically possible for her to 

have lost the amount of weight due to Norovirus. There 

was no medical reason for [Nancy’s] lack of gaining weight 

while in the custody of [Mother and Father] and she gained 

weight during her hospital stay.

28. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the juveniles: 

[Naomi, Timothy, and Cameron] are ADJUDICATED 

NEGLECTED, as the juveniles did not receive proper care, 

supervision and discipline from the parents, and live in an 

environment injurious to their welfare. [Naomi] did not 

receive appropriate medical care and the juveniles were in 

the home when [Nancy] was malnourished and kept in her 

room. [Naomi, Timothy, and Cameron] all witnessed their 

sister’s maltreatment and both [Timothy and Naomi] gave 

statements as to the mistreatment.
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

. . . .

36. [Timothy] completed a Comprehensive Clinical 

Assessment (CCA) on June 21, 2019 with Danielle Harper. 

On April 29, 2019, a forensic interview was completed 

indicating the allegations contained in the petition were 

true and charges have since been filed on both parents. . . .

. . . .

57. The father entered into a case plan with the 

Department on July 15, 2019; and most recently updated 

on April 12, 2021. The current case plan contains the 

following components:

 Parenting Skills: Participate in a parenting 

psychological assessment and comply with 

any recommendations; successfully complete 

the Parenting Assessment Training and 

Education (PATE) Program; attend all visits, 

as scheduled, and comply with the visitation 

expectations once allowed by the court; and 

enter into a voluntary support agreement with 

Child Support Enforcement. . . . [Father] has not 

provided a copy of [his] assessment nor signed a 

Release of Information in order for the Department 

to obtain this information. . . . As of today’s date, no 

consents have been provided to the Department. . . .

. . . .

On July 9, 2020, [Father] was arrested and charged 

for possession of drug paraphernalia. . . . [Father] 

has indicated that he will not change his narcotic 

medication.

. . . .

On August 15, 2019, Social Worker . . . spoke with 

Benita Hoover, Program Coordinator of DVIP. Ms. 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

Hoover confirmed that the last time [Father] 

participated in DVIP was in 2010 and he did not 

complete the program at that time, as he would not 

admit to being the perpetrator of abuse. [Father] 

indicated that he will still not admit to being the 

perpetrator of abuse. . . . [Father] has failed to admit 

that he has been the perpetrator of domestic violence 

despite criminal convictions for Felony Assault by 

Strangulation and Assault on a Female.

. . . .

. . . .

62. [Father] is currently on probation and has pending 

criminal charges with upcoming hearing dates as follows: 

Aiding and Abetting and Child Abuse-Inflicting Serious 

Mental or Physical. . . . .

63. On March 17, 2021, ADA Thompson informed Social 

Worker Boyd that she is preparing the plea offers and 

discovery for the Felony Child Abuse case. She is moving 

forward to fully prosecute [Mother]. She stated that 

[Father’s] case is not dropped or dismissed. He is still 

facing the charges of Aiding and Abetting Child Abuse. 

ADA Thompson stated that she does not have any intent of 

dropping the case. . . .

¶ 33 The trial court then concluded as law that it was “not in the best interests of 

the juveniles to have visitation with the mother or father pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 7B-905.1.” The findings show that: Father created or allowed to be created a 

substantive risk of serious physical injury and serious emotional damage for Nancy; 

Naomi, Timothy, and Cameron all witnessed Nancy’s mistreatment and 

malnourishment; Father had complied with only some of his case plan tasks; Father 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

did not follow through with recommended psychiatric care; Father would not sign 

releases to allow DSS to learn about Father’s participation in counseling; and that 

Father had a pending criminal charge for felony aiding and abetting child abuse. 

These unchallenged findings of fact amply support the trial court’s conclusion of law 

that visitation with Father was not in the best interests of the juveniles, and we thus 

determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying visitation. See

In re T.H., 232 N.C. App. at 34, 753 S.E.2d at 219.

2. Review of Visitation Plan

¶ 34 Father lastly argues that “the trial court reversibly erred by failing to inform 

[Father] of his right to move for a review of the trial court’s visitation plan.”

¶ 35 This Court reviews de novo whether a trial court correctly adhered to a 

statutory mandate and, if there was error, whether such error was harmless. In re 

E.M., 263 N.C. App. 476, 478-79, 823 S.E.2d 674, 676 (2019).

¶ 36 At the time of the hearing on 26 May 2021, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d) 

required that if “the court retains jurisdiction, all parties shall be informed of the 

right to file a motion for review of any visitation plan[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d) 

(effective until 30 September 2021). It also required the trial court review the case 

“within 90 days from the date of the initial dispositional hearing[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 7B-905(b) (effective until 30 September 2021). This Court has held that failing to 

inform the parties of their right to file a motion for review is reversible error, even 
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

though the trial court is required to hold a hearing within 90 days in any case. In re 

K.W., 272 N.C. App. 487, 497, 846 S.E.2d 584, 591 (2020). Recognizing the 

inconsistency, the General Assembly amended the statute; it now provides, “If the 

court waives permanency planning hearings and retains jurisdiction, all parties shall 

be informed of the right to file a motion for review of any visitation plan[.]” N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-905.1(d) (effective 1 October 2021) (emphasis added). 

¶ 37 We agree with Father that the trial court was required to, but did not, inform 

him of his right for review of any visitation plan; however, this error was harmless 

because the trial court immediately scheduled the next hearing date and Father was 

aware of the newly scheduled hearing date. The trial court did not fail to inform 

Father of his right for review and waive permanency planning hearings, a situation 

for which the updated statute contemplates and provides. Thus, while the trial court 

erred in failing to inform Father of his right for review of any visitation plan, the 

error was harmless. In re E.M., 263 N.C. App. at 479-80, 823 S.E.2d at 676-77.

III. Conclusion

¶ 38 The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusions of law 

that DSS made reasonable efforts to prevent placement of the juveniles outside the 

home and that it was not in the best interest of the juveniles to have visitation with 

Mother and Father. Additionally, while the trial court erred in failing to inform 

Father of his right for review of visitation, such error was harmless.
IN RE: N.L.M., T.R.M. IV, N.S.W., C.M.

2022-NCCOA-335

Opinion of the Court

AFFIRMED.

Judges HAMPSON and GORE concur.