An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA 15

- 531 Filed: 6 October 2015 New Hanover County, No. 14 JT 100 IN THE MATTER OF: D.L.B.
Appeal by respondent

- father from order entered 18 February 2015 by Judge J.H. Corpening, II , in New Hanover County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 September 2015

. Virginia R. Hager , for petitioner

- appellee mother. Assistant Appellate Defender J. Lee Gilliam , for respondent

- appellant father.

DILLON , Judge.

Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to D.L.B. (“David”) 1 . We affirm. On 8 May 2014, Mother filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father based on the following grounds: (1) neglect ; (2) abuse; (3) willful abandonment; and (4) willful failure to pay child support , as required by decree or custody agreement

. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 111 1(a)(1), (4), (7) (2013). Following a hearing, the trial court ente red an order concluding that termination of Father’s

1 A pseudonym.I N RE : D.L.B. Opinion of the Court

- 2

- parental rights was justified based upon the grounds alleged by M other, with the exception of abuse . The trial court also concluded that it was in David’s best interest to terminate Father ’s parental ri ghts. Father gave timely notice of appeal. Father’s counsel has filed a no

- merit brief on the Father’s behal f in which he states that after a “conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal,” he “concludes that the record contains no issue of m erit on which to base an argument for relief and that the appeal would be frivolous.” Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(d), counsel requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. Counsel has also shown to the s atisfaction of this C ourt that he has advised Fa ther of his right to file written arguments with this Cou rt, and counsel has provided F ather with the documents necessary to do so. F ather has not filed his own written arguments. After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any prejudicial error in the trial court’s order. The trial court exercised proper subject matter jurisdiction over the matter , the court’s findings of fact support at least one
gr ound for termination, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termi nation was in the best interest of the juvenile. The trial court found that F ather failed to pay court

- ordered child support for a period of more than one year prece ding the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. Because we find that this ground for termination is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in theI N RE : D.L.B. Opinion of the Court

- 3

- record , we decline to address the additional grounds found by the trial court. Se e In re S.N. , 194 N.C. App. 142, 149, 669 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2008). Accordingly, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s order terminating F ather ’s parental rights to the juvenile. AFFIRMED

. Judge s ELMORE and DIETZ concur. Report per Rule 30(e).