IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

No. COA 22

- 118

Filed 16 August 2022

Ashe County, No. 19 JT 32

IN THE MATTER OF : A.D.

Appeal by Respondent from an order entered 13 September 2021 by Judge

David V. Byrd in Ashe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June

2022

.

Peter Wood, for the Respondent

- Appellant.

R eeves , Di V

enere, Wright, Attorneys at Law, by Ann é C. Wright, for Ashe

County Department of Social Services, Petitioner

- Appellee

.

Paul W. Freeman, Jr. and Matthew D. Wunsche, for the Guardian ad Litem

.

WOOD , Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent

- Father (“ Father ”) appeals an order terminating his parental

rights to his minor child, A.D. (“Allison”) 1

, on the ground of willful failure to make

reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his child’ s removal from h is

care. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2) (2021). B ecause we hold the evidence does

not support all the findings of fact and the findings of fact do not support the trial

court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father ’s parental rig hts, we

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the child’s identity and for ease of reading.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

reverse the order of the trial court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Respondent

- Mother (“Mother”) 2 gave birth to Allison on August 5, 2019

.

Mother was unmarried at the time of Allison’s birth. Before Allison was born, Mother

was in a relationship with Father for approximately three or four months prior to

becoming pregnant and for one or two months after learning she was pregnant.

According to Mother, the relationship ended due to Mother’s c oncerns that Father

suffered from mental health issues and what she described as aggressiveness

.

Mother told Father that she was pregnant prior to Allison’s birth and contacted him

from the hospital after giving birth

.

¶ 3 Seven days after Allison’s b irth

, Ashe County Department of Social Services

(“ DSS ”) filed a petition alleging Allison to be neglected because the child tested

positive for barbiturates at birth and Mother tested positive for amphetamines for

which she was not prescribed

. Mother admitted to using amphetamines and smoking

methamphetamine during her pregnanc y

. The petition did not list a father for

Allison. DSS was awarded non

- secure custody of Allison. Two days later , at a hearing

for continued non

- secure custody, Mother testifi ed that Allison’s father may be Father

or another individual , and subsequently, the trial court ordered Father to submit to

2 Mother did not appeal the trial court’s orders, and thus is not a party to this action.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

DNA testing. On this same day, Mother provided DSS with a phone number to reach

Father, but the phone number was disconnected. DSS was later able to locate Father

through other means and served Father with an order to submit to DNA testing on

September 12, 2019 while he was in the custody of the Rowan County Jail. A ccording

to Ms. Charity Ballou (“Ms. Ballou”) , the foster care social worker assigned to work

with Allison, DSS did not make contact with Father until mid to late October 2019.

Father complete d DNA testing on November 4, 2019

. On November 8, 2019, Allison

was adjudicated neglected based upon Mother ’s substance abuse. The order did not

cont ain any findings relating to the putative father of the child. On November 21,

2019, Father received his paternity test results, which concluded the probability of

Father’s paternity was 99.99%.

¶ 4 During the January 10, 2020 review hearing, paternity for Allison was

established . T he trial court granted Father supervised

, bi

- weekly

, one

- hour visits

with Allison. At the time of the hearing, Father lived with his girlfriend and her

parents in Rockwell ; was empl oyed with Premier Heating and Air in Rowan County ;

and did not hold a valid driver’s license but did have a vehicle. 3 The trial court found

that “ [ a ] t this point [Father] is not participating in a family service case plan and has

just recently become involved in the child’s life.” The trial court concluded that the

3 W e take judicial not ice that the distance between Father’s residence in Rowan County and

Allison’s foster placement in Ashe County was approximately 105 miles.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

best primary perman e nt plan of care for Allison was reunification with a secondary

plan of adoption. On January 23, 2020, Father entered into a family service case plan

with DSS and agreed to: maintain steady employment, obtain stable housing and

transportation , communicate with DSS, take parenting classes, and attend visits

with Allison.

¶ 5 At a perman en cy planning review hearing on February 28, 2020, the t rial court

found that Father was living in Rockwell, North Carolina with his girlfriend 4 , but

was attempting to relocate to Ashe County to live near Allison, including applying for

employment in that county at Nations Inn and construction jobs. The court also found

that Father did not have a valid driver’s license ; was working with a day labor

company part

- time in Rowan County ; had made himself available to the court, DSS,

and GAL; and had signed up for a parenting program in Rowan County

. In terms of

vis itation, the trial court found that Father had difficulty attending his visits with

Allison because of lack of transportation and had attended three visits at the time of

the hearing

. The trial court modified Father’s supervised visitation to occur once p er

week for one hour and ordered reasonable efforts towards reunification with Mother

and Father be made to eliminate the need for Allison’s placement in foster care.

¶ 6 Father ’s case plan was later amended in March 2020

. DSS communicated with

4 The record refers to Father’s girlfriend as his wife. Father and girlfriend never married.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

Father t o discuss “ some ongoing concerns, based on collateral information that there

was potentially some substance use and mental health issues. ” Subsequently, Father

agreed to take a substance use assessment through Daymark, follow any resulting

recommendations, and submit to random urine drug screens. 5 DSS then made

referrals to different Daymark locations based upon the c ount ies in which he was

living between March and December 2020: namely, Rowan County, Ashe County , and

Watauga County

.

¶ 7 On May 16, 2020, Father entered into an agreement to pay child support for

Allison in the amount of $50 per month and $25 per month towards arrears owed

beginning June 1, 2020.

¶ 8 At a May 22, 2020 permanency plan review hearing

, two months into the

pa ndemic, the trial court found that Father continued to live in Rockwell at his

girlfriend’s parent’s residence

. In terms of his employment, the trial court found that

he was currently unemployed but seeking employment, having previously “worked

for the Co ffee House Restaurant (1

- 2 weeks), a day labor company, [and] more

recently for McDonald’s (for 3

- 4 weeks).” Father was living off the stimulus

payments , due to the COVID

- 19 pandemic, he and his girlfriend received. The court

5 We note that other than in the trial court’s TPR order, the family service case plan’s requirement for Father to submit to random urine drug screens does not appear in

any DSS report or prior order of the trial court.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

found that Father had 1) pai d all fines to have his driver’s license restored ; 2 )

completed parenting classes and obtained certification of his completion along with

his girlfriend ; and 3) made himself available to the court, DSS, and GAL

. Because

Father resided with his girlfriend and her family

, the trial court found she too needed

to enter into a f

amily s ervice case plan with DSS. The trial court also found that

since the beginning of the C OVID

- 19 pandemic, Father ha d participated in weekly

supervised video conference calls with his daughter via Zoom

, which had gone well

,

and had sent Easter presents to his daughter

. T he trial court determined that Father

was participating and cooperating with the family service case plan and continued

the primary permanent plan of care bein g reunification with a secondary permanent

plan of care being adoption. Shortly after th e review hearing, in approximately June

or July 2020, Father ended his relationship with his girlfriend because he did not feel

that she was on “the same page .

. . as far as .

. . providing for [Allison] and assisting

[him] and [his] efforts to have [Allison] in [his] life. ”

¶ 9 A permanency plan review hearing was held on September 11, 2020

. At the

time of the hearing, Father lived at the Hospitality House located in Boone, North

Carolina

, and “for a period of time had to stay in a tent on the grounds of the

Hospitality House due to COVID

- 19 restrictions.” Father resubmit ted an application

to HUD for housing allowances, opened a bank account, and saved money for h ousing.

In terms of employment, the court found that Father had worked for a constructionI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

company in Boone for approximately two months. Father also received advice and

help from the Director of the Hospitality House to build a support ne twork. At the

time, Father was on probation for larceny and was required to pay probation fees.

The court also found that transportation was a barrier for F ather and “ [ i ] t would be

easier for him to visit [Allison] every other week rather than once weekly.” F ather

would not be eligible to apply for reinstatement of his driver ’s license until November

2020. From July 21, 2020 until August 6, 2020, Father was incarcerated.

¶ 10 On August 24, 2020, Father submitted to a drug screen, which according to the

court , “was inconclusive due to the creatinine level being lower than normal. This

could be due to kidney failure, or he tampered with the drug screen.” A substance

abuse assessment for Father was scheduled on August 26, 2020

, but he did attend

that appointme nt or a second appointment.

¶ 11 After the May 2020 hearing

, Father attended five (one in June, two in July,

and two in August) of the ten scheduled visits with Allison between the May and

September hearings. According to Father, he and Allison bonded during these visits

and having his daughter “ helped him to want to do better.” Father was also under

order to pay child support, and accordingly, paid $300 towards his child support

obligation on the day of the h earing. Ms. Ballou testified that during this period of

time, there were “times where phone numbers would change, where we were unable

to make contact, but overall, I would say that [Father] has been

– at least once perI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

month I have been able to somehow make contact with him.” Ms. Ballou further

reported that during this time, “ there have been times in which he has been difficult

to locate or that there have been many attempts made to get that one contact in per

month and then there have been other mont hs where he has been very

communicative where I have

-- I would say

-- regular contact with him. ” The court

changed the primary permanent plan of care for Allison to adoption, with a secondary

plan of care of reunification with her parents.

¶ 12 On December 9, 2020, DSS filed a petition to terminate Father ’s and Mo t her’s

parental rights to Allison. The petition , as it pertained to Father, stated that : Allison

was adjudicated as neglected ; Father failed to pay child support and willfully left

Allison i n placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without

showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress was made ; the trial

c ourt at no time had determined that Father was capable of providing a safe a nd

stable home for Allison ; and the trial court never approved unsupervised visitation s

between Allison and Father

.

¶ 13 On February 5, 2021, Mother relinquished her parental rights to Allison

. The

trial court conducted the hearing on DSS’s petition to terminate Father ’s parental

rights on May 3, 2021.

¶ 14 At the termination hearing, Ms. Ballou testified that Father ’s communication

with DSS was sporadic, there had been times in which Father was difficult to locat eI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

as he moved frequently and allegedly had issues with his phones being disconnected,

but that she was somehow able to contact him once per month. Ms. Ballou reported

that while Father was supposed to maintain contact with her on a weekly basis, keep

her in formed of any changes in his residence or contact information , and notify her of

changes in his employment, he only did so “ [a]t times, but not at others.”

¶ 15 According to Ms. Ballou

, since Allison entered the care of DSS, Father had

lived at eight different addresses, although not all of them had been verified by DSS.

At the time of the January 10, 2020 review hearing, Father and his girlfriend were

living in Rowan County and staying with his girlfriend’s parents. At the February

2 8, 2020 perman en cy planning hearing, it was determined that Father and his

girlfriend had moved to Watauga County and lived at a homeless shelter. Shortly

after

, Father lived in a hotel room paid for by DSS, and DSS purchased a tent for

Father

. In May 20 20, Father lived at the Hospitality House in Watauga County.

Father was incarcerated briefly from July to August 2020 and remained on

supervised probation until January 2021

. A fter his release from incarceration

, and

upon receiving HUD assistance, Father began renting a two

- bedroom

, single

bathroom home on February 15, 2021 , for a one

- year lease period

. At the time of the

termination hearing, Father still reside d at the rental home. Ms. Ballou testified

that the home was well

- kept ; well stocked with food ; and included a room for AllisonI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

set up with provisions such as clothes, diapers, wipes, shoes, toys, a highchair

, and a

stroller.

¶ 16 T he trial court found that Father “has had various jobs but is currently self

employed working for his neighbor.” When Father ’s case plan was developed on

January 23, 2020, Father engaged in odd jobs such as in construction and general

labor , but never provided verification of employment to DSS

. Ms. Ballou testified

that in the Spring of 2020, DSS helped Father obtain employment at a local

restaurant, but he worked there only for two or three days. In May 2020, Father

reported he was working odd jobs that provided him with some income

. In July 2020,

Father found a full

- time job working construction , was able to save money for

housing, and opened a bank account

. Father’s income for the year of 2020 was

$3,400.00

. At the time of the termination hearing, Father was self

- employed , working

for his neighbor doi ng jobs in carpentry and construction. Ms. Ballou testified Father

furnished verification of his employment the week before the termination hearing

and provided nine bank deposit slips for jobs worked from December 2020 to March

2021. At the termination hearing, Father testified that he earned approximately

$1,000 a week and had no difficult y paying his house rent, which was $ 4 50 per month

after the $200 HUD monthly assistance

.

¶ 17 As required by his c ase p lan, Father completed a parenting program in May

2020. In terms of visitation, the trial court found that Father was approved to haveI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

two supervised visitations per month with Allison, for two hours at a time. However,

at a hearing on September 11, 2020

, Father requ ested that the visits be reduced to

once per month due to his work schedule, but that change was not implemented

. The

trial court found tha t since visitation began in January 2020, Father only missed a

total of seven visits during the time Allison was in foster care. Ms. Ballou clarified

during the termination hearing that these “missed” visits were primarily early in the

case and that his visits had become more stable over time. At a May 22, 2020

permanency plan ning review hearing , the trial court found that since the C OVID

- 19

pandemic, he ha d participated in weekly video conference calls via Zoom with Allison,

which had gone well.

¶ 18 Since the September 11, 2020 perman en cy planning review hearing, Ms.

Ballou testified that Father has been consistent in making his visits with Allison

,

“has been appropriate in his interactions” with his daughter

, and since December,

has provided food and other small gifts for Allison during the visits. Father testified,

and Ms. Ballou confirmed, that he has been in co ntact with the Children ’ s Council in

Boone to learn about what would be developmentally appropriate for Allison’s age

group and “how to become a better father.” Father also testified that he signed up for

two additional parenting classes through the Children ’ s Council , which were to start

in Fall 2021.

¶ 19 In accordance with his case plan, Father paid the necessary fees to restore hisI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

driver ’s license on M arch 24, 2021. Pursuant to Father ’s parenting plan regarding

issues of substance abuse and me ntal health, Ms. Ballou stated she first made a

referral for Father ’s mental health and substance abuse assessment in March 2020.

Referrals were requested for Father in three different counties b ased upon where he

resided throughout the life of the case so as to make assessments and any follow

- up s

more convenient for him. Father completed a virtual assessment on December 29,

2020

. When asked at the termination hearing why Father took nine months to

complete th e assessment, Father testified that: “ It's been a hard past year or so ” as

the C OVID

- 19 pandemic occurred during this time which affected scheduling and

transportation

. Father at times lacked proper transportation ; was on probation

during part of this period of time ; “ was having to take off work quite a bit and,

unfortunately, it did take some time to get the assessment from Daymark ” ;

underwent a learning process in emailing documentation to Daymark ; experienc ed

“some phone technology issues” ; and had h is phones disappear or break due to his

line of work.

¶ 20 As a result of the assessment, Father was diagnosed with borderline

personality disorder, and it was recommended that he engage in individual therapyI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

and DBT 6 group therapy weekly. Ms. Ballou te stified that Father attended a therapy

session on January 4, 2021. While Father signed up for three group sessions in April

2021, he was a “ no

- show ” for all sessions. Father was requested to submit to five

drug screens and submitted to two of them

. One of these tests was negative and the

other was inconclusive. Father did not take three of the drug screens because , when

DSS asked Father at visitations with Allison to take them, he stated

, “he could not

stay or his ride could not wait long enough for him to submit to a screen

. ” At the

termination hearing , Ms. Ballou testified that because Father did not resid e in Ashe

County , it was difficult to find locations “ to have him go on in and screen. So, there

hav e not been very many tests requested due to that fact. ”

¶ 21 Father’s counsel questioned Ms. Ballou regarding her knowledge of a letter

written by Father’s former probation officer which was previously submitted at a

February 12, 2021 hearing. 7 The letter in question stated that Father had submitted

to two drug screens on December 21, 2020 and January 20, 2021, and both results

6 Dialectical Behavioral Therapy or DBT is an “evidence

- based treatment that brings

together cognitive

- behavior al strategies and acceptance

- validation strategies to help

individuals with intense emotional suffering and dysfunctional behaviors ” and has been

used in the treatment of “substance abuse, disordered eating, anger, depression, anxiety,

and interpersonal di fficulties.” Dialectical Behavioral Therapy

, UNC S CH

. OF S OC

. W ORK

, https://cls.unc.edu/upcoming

- programs

- 2016

- 2017/clinical

- lecture

- institutes/dbt/ (last

vis ited July 7, 2022).

7 The record before us does not contain a copy of the February 12, 2021 permanency

planning review hearing. However, this review hearing and the evidence that was

submitted therein is consistently referred to in the TPR hearing’s transcripts.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

were negative.

¶ 22 In the termination order, the trial court found that Allison remained in the

care and custody of DSS c ontinuously since August 12, 2019, and at the time of the

termination hearing, had been in the care and custody of DSS for approximately 21

months. The trial court also found that although Father had made some progress on

his case plan, his progress “ has not been adequate to meet the needs standing in his

way to provide proper and adequate care for [ Allison ]

. ” Therefore, the trial court

concluded grounds existed for the termination of Father ’s parental rights based on

Father willfully leaving Allison in foster care or placement outside the home for more

than 12 months “without showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable

progress under the circumstances has been made in correcting those conditions which

led to the removal of [Allison].” At disposition, the court further concluded that it

was in Allison’s best interests to terminate Father’s parental rights

. The termination

order was entered on September 13, 2021

, and Father entered written notice of appeal

on Sep tember 23, 2021.

II. Discussion

¶ 23 Father ’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court committed prejudicial

error by terminating his parental rights on the ground of willful ly leaving Allison in

foster care , when this is not supported by clear, cog ent, and convincing evidence. We

agree

.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

A. Standard of Review

¶ 24 Termination of parental rights actions consist of a two

- stage process:

adjudication and disposition. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B

- 1109

, 7B

- 1110 (2021) ; I n re

A.U.D

., 373 N.C. 3, 5, 832 S.E.2d 698, 700 (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.” 8 In re A.U.D.

, 373 N.C. at 5, 832 S.E.2d at 700 (quoting N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 7B

- 1109 (f))

. We review a trial court’s adjudication that grounds exist to

terminate parental rights to determine “ whether the trial court ’ s f indings of fact are

supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether those findings

support the trial court ’ s conclusions of law. ” In re A.B.C

., 374 N.C. 752

, 760, 844

S.E.2d 902, 908 (2020) (citation omitted)

. “The trial court’s conclusions of law are

reviewable de novo on appeal.” In re J.S.L

., 177 N.C. App. 151, 154, 628 S.E.2d 387,

389 (2006) ( cleaned up ). “ Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is evidence which

should fully convince. ” North Carolina State Bar v. Talford

, 147 N.C. App. 581, 587,

8 While this Court reviews a trial court ’ s conclusion that grounds exist to terminate parental

rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a) to determine whether the findings are supported by clear,

cogent and convincing evidence and t he findings support the conclusions of law, In re M.P.M., 243

N.C. App. 41, 45, 776 S.E.2d 687, 690 (2015), the statute specifies that the burden in termination

proceedings “is on the petitioner or movant to prove the facts justifying the termination by cl ear and

convincing evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(b).I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

556 S.E.2d 344, 349 (2001) ( cleaned up ), aff’ d a s modified

, 356 N.C. 626, 576 S.E.2d

305 (2003).

¶ 25 In making this determination, “ [ u ] nchallenged findings are deemed to be

supporte d by the evidence and are binding on appeal. ” In re K.N.K.

, 374 N.C. 50, 53,

839 S.E. 2d 735, 738 (2020) ( cleaned up ). We are bound by the trial court ’s findings

“ where there is some evidence to support those findings, even though the evidence

might sustain findings to the contrary.” In re Montgomery

, 311 N.C. 101, 110

- 11, 316

S.E.2d 246, 252

- 53 (1984) (citations omitted). “On appeal, this Court may not reweigh

th e evidence or assess credibility.” In re K.G.W

., 250 N.C. App. 62, 67, 791 S.E.2d

540, 543 (2016) ( citing Kelly v. Duke Univ.

, 190 N.C. App. 733, 738

- 39, 661 S.E.2d

745, 748 (2008)). Additionally, we review “only those findings necessary to support

the trial court ’ s determination that grounds existed to terminate [ Father ’ s ] parental

rights.” In re T.N.H.

, 372 N.C. 403

, 407, 831 S.E.2d 54, 58

- 59 (2019) (citation

omitted).

¶ 26 Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2) , a trial court may terminate

parental rights upon a finding that “[t]he parent has willfully left the juvenile in

foster care or placement outside the home for more than 12 months without showing

to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress under the circumstances has

been made i n correcting those conditions which led to the removal of the

juvenile.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2) ; In re A.M.

, 377 N.C

. 220, 2021

- NCSC

- 42,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

¶ 16.

¶ 27 A finding that a parent acted willfully for purposes of sec tion 7B

- 1111(a)(2)

“does not require a showing of fault by the parent. A [ Father ’ s ] prolonged inability to

improve [his] situation, despite some efforts in that direction, will support a finding

of willfulness regardless of [his] good intentions, and will support a finding of lack of

progress sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights.” In re B.J.H.

, 378 N.C.

524 , 2021

- NCSC

- 103, ¶ 12 (quoting In re J.S.

, 374 N.C. 811, 815, 845 S.E.2d 66, 71

(2020)). A “finding of willfulness is not precluded even if the [ Father ] has made some

efforts to regain custody of the children.” In re Nolen , 117 N.C. App. 693, 699, 453

S.E.2d 220, 224 (1995) (citation om itted)

. Although Allison was removed from

Mother’s home and placed in custody before Father’s paternity was established, we

have previously determined that in order for a parent to avoid the termination of his

or her parental right s under § 7B

- 1111(a)(2)

, the parent is required to “ make

reasonable progress under the circumstances towards correcting those conditions

that led to the child being placed in [DSS] custody, irrespective of whoever ’ s fault it

was that the child was placed in [DSS] custody in the first place. ” In re A.W

. , 237

N.C. App. 209, 217

, 765 S.E.2d 111, 115

- 16 (2014) (cleaned up)

.

¶ 28 To assess the reasonableness of Father ’s progress in correcting the conditions

that led to Allison’s placement into DSS custody

, Father ’s progress is evaluated “for

the duration leading up to the hearing on the motion or petition to terminate parentalI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

rights.” In re A.C.F.

, 176 N.C. App. 520, 528, 626 S.E.2d 729, 735 (2006). “ [ A ] trial

court has ample authority to determine that a parent’s ‘extremely limited progress’

in correcting the conditions leading to removal adequately supports a determination

that a parent’s parental rights in a particular child are subject to termin ation”

pursuant to section 7B

- 1111(a)(2)

. In re B.O.A.

, 372 N.C. 372 , 38 5 , 831 S.E.2d 305,

314 (2019) (citation omitted).

¶ 29 Our Supreme Court has held “parental compliance with a judicially adopted

case plan is relevant in determining whether grounds for termination exist pursuant

to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2) ” provided that “ a s long as a particular case plan provision

addresses an issue that, directly or indirectly, contributed to causing the juvenile’s

removal from the parental home , the extent to which a parent has reasonably

complied with the case plan provision is, at minimum, relevant to the determination ”

of whether th at parent’s parental rights are subject to termination for failure to make

reasonable progress

. Id

. at 384

- 85

, 831 S.E.2d at 31 3

- 1 4 (emphasis added)

.

¶ 30 Although Father was not a member of the child’s home at the time of removal,

it was appropriate for DSS to require Father to complete a family service case plan

so that the child could be returned to a parent once conditions inhibiting reunification

were met. Accordingly, we look at Father ’s progress in correcting the conditions

which resulted in Allison being placed in DSS custody

. In re A.W

. , 237 N.C. Ap p. at

217

, 765 S.E.2d at 115

- 16

.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

B. Challenged Findings of Fact

¶ 31 Father challenges the trial court’s finding of fact 10

, and challenges 16 of the

42 sub

- findings contained therein

. Father contend s th e trial court’s findings are

unsupported by competent evidence and leave out crucial information that directly

affected whether Father had made reasonable progress. The trial court made the

following contested findings :

10. The Court finds as a fact [Father] willfully left the

j uvenile in foster care or placement outside the home for

more than 12 months without showing to the satisfaction

of the court that reasonable progress under the

circumstances has been made in correcting those

conditions which led to the removal of the juve nile.

In support thereof the Court finds as a fact that:

. . .

g). [ Father ] at no time sought paternity or custody of

[Allison].

h). [Mother] was very honest with the Department as to the

possible fathers and provided a telephone number for

[Father]

. Social Worker Ballou made multiple phone calls,

mailings and emails to [ Father ]

.

. . .

k). A court order was entered August 14, 2019, for [an

individual] and [ Father ] to submit to DNA testing.

[ Father ] was served with the Order to submit to DNA

testin g on September 12, 2019 but did not complete the

testing until November 4, 2019; the results indicated the

probability of paternity as 99.99%.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

p). Initially [Father] was residing in Rowan County with

his “wife” and her family. He had no driver s [sic] license

and worked odd jobs. Later he admitted they were not

married; and their relationship ended in June or July 2020.

q). While in Rockwell, NC and living with his significant

other the Department sent referrals for [Father] to have an

assessment at th e Rowan County Daymark.

. . .

y). Although a part of the family service case plan [Father]

did not participate in a mental health/substance abuse

assessment until December 29, 2020

z). [Father] admittedly has had difficulty with being

criticized and feel ing as if he is being judged. There are

times he has an intense anger. Over the years he has had

difficulty in relationships with others. He struggles with

impulsive behaviors.

. . .

dd). [Father] has had various jobs but is currently self

employed working for his neighbor. His income for the year

of 2020 was $3,400.00.

ee). [Father] is approved to have supervised visitation

twice monthly for two hours. He has requested once

monthly visits and gave the reason it is hard for him to get

off work. [Father] has missed seven visits with [Allison]

since visitation began in January 2020. Transportation

to/from visits has been offered and/or provided. Gas cards

have been provided to [Father] to assist with the expense

of traveling to/from v isits.

. . .

ii). [Father] has had inconsistent communication with the

Department. There was a period of time in the spring of

2020 and 2021 that there was little if any communication.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

. . .

kk). [Father] made no effort to determine paternity or

estab lish a relationship with his daughter. Upon the [trial

court] entering an order for paternity testing to be

conducted [Father] did not submit to the test until

November 2019.

ll ). The Court finds that [Father ’ s ] progress has not been

adequate to meet the needs standing in his way to provide

proper and adequate care for [Allison].

. . .

nn). Substance use was the reason [Allison] came into

foster care; [Father] has not attended mental health or

substance use therapy as recommended by his

assessments.

. . .

pp). [Father] has failed to comply with all but the most

minimal requirements of his family service case plan. The

limited progress made is not reasonable.

qq). Although [ Father ] knew prior to and after the child ’ s

birth that he might be the child ’ s father, he did not make

himself available for possible placement of the child when

the child was placed in DSS custody. Indeed, he made no

such efforts until the child was six months old and had been

in DSS custody for all but 7 days of her life.

rr). [ Fa ther ] previously denied having any relationship

with the child ’ s mother. It was only after the results of

paternity testing were revealed that [ Father ] admitted to

such a relationship.

1. Sub

- f indings of Fact 10(g) and 10(kk)

¶ 32 Father challenges sub

- find ing 10(g) that states, “ [ Father ] at no time soughtI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

paternity or custody of [Allison] ” and argues that this finding was misleading and

incomplete. Father also contests a similar finding, finding of fact 10(kk), which

states: “[Father] made no effort to determine paternity or establish a relationship

with his daughter. Upon the [trial court] entering an order for paternity testing to

be conducted [Father] did not submit to the test until November 2019.” Father argues

that this finding is misleading.

¶ 33 It is undisputed Mother told Father she was pregnant; according to Mother’s

testimony, Father was present when Mother’s pregnancy test results were revealed.

Father was aware that Allison’s delivery was successful when Mother contacted him

from the hospital

. However, a ccording to sub

- finding 10(c), Mother named two

individuals as the possible father of Allison, with one being Father. Father testified

at the termination hearing that when Mother contacted him from the hospital, he

was unsure if Allison was “[his] child or if it was somebody else ’ s child” and if Allison

“was even at risk of not being born” because of Mother’s lifestyle. The evidence shows

that after Mother testified of Father’s possible paternity at a n August 1 2

, 2019

hearing, DS S attempted to contact Father through several methods but w as unable

to reach him because the phone number Mother provided was disconnected. Once

DSS made contact with Father in mid to late October 2019, Father completed DNA

testing on November 4, 2019. According to Father, he did not know Allison was his

daughter until he received the r esults from the DNA testing on November 21, 2019.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

The evidence and the undisputed findings of fact demonstrate that Father sought

paternity once he was contacted by DSS to undergo a DNA test for Allison and did so

in November 2019.

¶ 34 As to the issue of custody and establishing a relationship with Allison

, we hold

the trial court’s finding s are un supported by the record evidence

. Once adjudicated

as Allison’s biological father, Father entered into a family service case plan on

January 23, 2020

, in order to pursue custody

, be “ reunif[ i ed ]

, ” and provid e a safe

,

permanent home for his daughter

. Ample record evidence demonstrates Father put

forth great effort to establish a relationship with his daughter by moving across the

state to be closer to her. Ms. Ballou ’s testi mony tended to show Father has been

consistent in his visits with Allison since the September 11, 2020 hearing, and during

visitat ions, Father talks, plays, brings gifts, and acts appropriately with his

daughter

. Further, Father ended the relationship with his girlfriend to be reunite d

with his daughter

. Father also obtained employment; successfully navigated the

administrative pro cess of having his driver’s license reinstated; attended every

permanency planning review hearing ; and purchased a vehicle

. Finally, Father

obtained safe and appropriate housing , which included a room for Allison in his home

and made some child support and arrearage payments

. Therefore, we hold sub

findings of fact 10(g) and 10(kk) are not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Sub

- finding of Fact 10 (

h)I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

¶ 35 Next, Father contends that sub

- finding of fact 10(h) was “not necessarily

wrong, but

. . . incomplete ” because the sub

- finding leaves out that he was homeless,

difficult to track down, and only had a remote possibility of being Allison ’s father

.

Sub

- finding of fact 10(h) states, “ [Mother] was very honest with the D epartment as

to the possible fathers and provided a telephone number for [Father]

. Social Worker

Ballou made multiple phone calls, mailings and emails to [ Father ]. ” We are

unpersuaded by this argument

.

¶ 36 T he record demonstrates that Father ’s housing instability contributed to the

difficulty in reaching him

. Father testified that at the time he entered into a family

service case plan he was seeking housing. Further, Father testified he was served

with the order to obtain DNA testing while in the Rowan County jail. Ms. Ballou’s

testimony further confirmed that DSS tried several methods, manners, and times to

contact Father without success. Mother’s testimony indicated the possibility that

Father might not have been Allison’s father and that she provided a telephone

number purported to be Father’s to DSS. Therefore, we hold the trial court ’s sub

finding of fact 10(h) is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

3. Sub

- finding of Fact 10 (

k)

¶ 37 Next, Father contends that sub

- finding of fact 10(k) left out “crucial

information” and that “ [ t ] he [trial court’s] finding makes it seem as if [Father] was

trying to avoid taking the test and was denying paternity. ” Sub

- finding of fact 10(k)I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

states:

A court order was entered August 14, 2019, for [an

individual] and [Father] to submit to DNA testing.

[Father] was served with the Order to submit to DNA

testing on September 12, 2019 but did not complete the

testing until November 4, 2019; the results indicated the

probability of paternity a s 99.99%.

In his brief, Father argues that the “ crucial information” alleged to have been omitted

by the trial court’s finding was that: Father stayed in contact with DSS so that

together they arranged for a paternity test; Father lacked the resources to a rrange

for the test on his own; “ [ i ] t appears that [Father] took the test at his first

opportunity”; and DSS had difficulty locating him. We disagree

.

¶ 38 Record evidence tends to show on August 14, 2019

, Father and another

individual were ordered to submit to DNA testing to establish paternity for Allison.

Father’s testimony at the hearing established that he was served with the order for

a paternity test o n September 12, 2019

. Ms. Ballou’s testimony c onfirmed Father

completed the testing on November 4, 2019. The test results indicated that Father’s

probability of paternity was 99.99% and Father was officially established to be

Allison’s father at the January 10, 2020 review hearing. It appears that F ather take s

issue with just three words: “but did not” in the trial court’s sub

- finding of fact 10 (k).

While the word “and

, ” substituted for the words “but did not

, ” may well cast a softer

impression, the chronology of events remains unchanged. We ho ld sub

- finding of factI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

10(k) is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

4. Sub

- finding s of Fact 10 (

p)

, 10 ( q ), and 10(y)

¶ 39 Next, Father contends the trial court left out crucial pieces of information in

sub

- findings of fact 10(p)

, 10(q), and 10(y)

. Sub

- finding of fact 10(p) state s that when

Father first became involved in this case, he resided in Rowan County “ with his ‘ wife ’

and her family ” at which point “ [ h ] e had no driver s [sic] license and worked odd jobs.

Later he admitted they were not marr ied; and their relationship ended in June or

July 2020. ” In contesting this sub

- finding, we note that Father’s brief does not cite

to any authority supporting his theory or point to any evidence in the record that

would establish that the trial court’s su b

- finding has omitted crucial information.

Therefore, under Rule 28(b)(6) of North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, this

argument is deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P

. 28(b)(6).

¶ 40 Concerning sub

- findi ngs of fact 10(q) and 10(y), Father contends that “ [ t ]his

entire situation took place during a pandemic” and many services were unavailable

,

causing scheduling appointment s to be difficult while offices shut down and provider s

transitioned to working from home. Although Father’s contention s are true

, the

record shows Ms. Ballou made referrals for Father to have a mental health and

substance abuse assessment at Daymark, located in Rowan County, because Father

was living there at the time. Therefore, sub

- finding of fact 10(q) is supported by clear

and convincing evidence in the record

.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

¶ 41 Regarding sub

- finding of fact 10(y), Father argues that his efforts with

substance abuse treatment included attending Celebrate Recovery, a faith

- based

support group. Father also argues that he complet ed a substance abuse assessment

and complied with the assessment’s recommendations when he was placed on

s upervised p robation and ordered to so comply

. Finally, Father contends that the

disputed sub

- finding does not address whether he has a current substance abuse

problem.

¶ 42 According to a letter written by Father’s probation officer, Father was ordered

to complete a substance abuse assessment after being placed on supervised probation

on February 21, 2020 for a misdemeanor larceny. Father completed the substance

abuse assessment on November 24, 2020 through the TASC program. 9 Father’s

completion of the substance abuse assessment was also confirmed by a letter from a

TASC care manager. To the extent that this sub

- finding of fact i mplies that Father

did not complete the substance abuse program until December 29, 2020, it is not

supported by evidence and therefore, we disregard this specific portion of that sub

finding of fact. As to Father’s participation in a mental health assessm ent, Father’s

testimony at the hearing confirmed that he did not take the assessment until the end

9 The North Carolina Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities Network or TASC

“ provides services to people with substance abuse or mental health problems who are involved in the

criminal justice system.” Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities

, N.C. D EP ’ T OF H EALTH &

H UM

. S ERVS

., https://www.ncdhhs.gov/assistance/mental

- health

- substance

- abuse/treatment

accountability

- for

- safer

- communities (last visited July 7, 2022).I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

of December 2020. Related to Father’s mental health assessment, we hold that the

portion of this sub

- finding of fact relating to Father’s mental health asse ssment is

supported by the record evidence.

5. Sub

- finding of Fact 10 (

z)

¶ 43 Next, Father contends sub

- finding of fact 10(z) is unsupported. It states:

“[F] ather admittedly has had difficulty wi t h being criticized and feeling as if he is

being judged. There are times he has an intense anger. Over the years he has had

difficulty in relationships with others. He struggles with impulsive behaviors

. ”

Father contends this sub

- finding “mentions no specific dates, and it is unclear how

t his finding applies to the twelve

- month period before the filing of the termination

petition.” Despite Father’s contentions with this sub

- finding, the record

demonstrates that Father’s family service case plan was amended to include a mental

health assessment and Father was to follow any resulting recommendations

therefrom

. Additionally, an undisputed finding indicates that Father and Mother’s

relationship ended due to Father’s aggressiveness and Mother’s concerns that Father

had mental health issues. In determining Father’s compliance with his case plan,

there is a reasonable inference that the trial court would consider the status of

Father’s mental health.

¶ 44 The record also demonstrates that the trial court’s sub

- finding of fact is

primarily based upon Father ’s testimony at the termination hearing. At the hearing,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

Father testified that “ it is definitely an uncomfortable feeling that I get sometimes

when I feel put on the spot, or judged, or

-- but it is something I have been able to

work on and certainly som ething that I have been more tolerable for in the past

years [

. ] ” Additionally, Father testified that in the past, he had “ some hard times

developing healthy relationships and long

- lasting relationships, but that is definitely

something that has been impro ving in the last couple of years [

. ] ” Father also stated

that acting impulsively “has been an issue in [his] past,

. . . that i s something [he is]

definitely aware of

. . . [i]t is something [he] will probably work on and deal with for

the rest of [his] life ” and he is seeking help for it

. While the sub

- finding does not

mention specific dates, it reflect s that Father’s behaviors have occurred in the past

and are issues that are presently improving

. Based upon the undisputed findings

and the record, we u phold the trial court ’ s sub

- finding as it is supported by clear and

convincing evidence.

6. Sub

- finding of Fact 10 (

dd)

¶ 45 Next, Father contests sub

- finding of fact 10(dd), which states: “ [Father] has

had various jobs but is currently self

- employed working for his neighbor. His income

for the year of 2020 was $3,400.00

. ” Father contends th is sub

- finding excludes

information about his progress since moving to Watauga County

, as he secured full

time employment in mid

- 2020 and makes approximately $1,000 per week. Father’s

argument is in substance directed at the trial court’s determination of the credibilityI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

of the evidence presented at the termination hearing and the weighing of suc h

evidence. See In re P.A.

, 241 N.C. App. 53, 57, 772 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2015). A t the

termination hearing, Ms. Ballou testified that throughout the duration of Father’s

family service case plan

, Father worked “odd jobs,” working mostly construction and

ge neral labor

. For a short period of time, Father obtained employment at a Coffee

House in West Jefferson. Father’s testimony also demonstrated that he has “a full

time gig” and has “been doing carpentry and construction.” I n terms of working in

construct ion, Father testified that he works for himself and can be hired by many

employers

. For example, Father explained one of his employers is “a home builder

that lives right across the street” from him. Further, Ms. Ballou testified that Father

provide d a copy of a 1099

- NEC and a W

- 2 form

, indicating an income of approximately

$3,400 for the year 2020

. Father testified he had not received proof of all of his income

statements for taxes, and that he had more income in 2020 than what was indicated.

How ever, at the time of the termination hearing, $3,400 was the income amount for

2020 that could be verified by documentation

.

¶ 46 We note that i t is “ the duty of the trial judge to consider and weigh all of the

competent evidence, and to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight

to be given their testimony.” In re S.C.R., 198 N.C. App. 525, 531

- 32

, 679 S.E.2d 905,

909 (2009) (citation omitted)

. While the trial court’s termination order did not include

the extent of Father’s detailed em ployment history or Father’s recent income, theI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

“ trial court is not required to make findings of fact on all the evidence presented, nor

state every option it considered.” In re E.S , 378 N.C. 8, 2021

- NCSC

- 72, ¶ 22 ( quoting

In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. 66, 75, 623 S.E.2d 45 , 51 (2005) )

. The trial court made a

“brief, pertinent, and definite finding[]” about one of the matters at issue

, which is

supported by evidence in the record. In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. at 75, 623 S.E.2d at

51

.

7. Sub

-

finding of Fact 10 (

ee)

¶ 47 Next, Father challenges sub

- finding of fact 10(ee) in which the trial court found

that:

[ F ] ather is approved to have supervised visitation twice

monthly for two hours

. He has requested once monthly

visits and gave the reason it is hard for him to get off work

. [ Father ] has missed seven visits with [ Allison ] since

visitation began in January 2020

. T ransportation to/from

visits has been offered and/or provided

. G as cards have

been provided to [ Father ] to assist with the expense of

traveling to/from visits.

Father argues that this sub

- finding of fact relies upon old information as most of

Father’s missed visits were in “early 2020 when he was homeless, without a driver’s

license, and living across the state.” Father argues that since moving to Watauga

County, his visitation record has been consistent, and he stopped missing visits over

a year before the termination hearing.

¶ 48 First, t he order from the September 11, 2020 permanency planning reviewI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

hearing indicates that Father was approved to have supervised visitation with Allison

for two hours every two weeks. Ms. Ballou’s testimony at the hearing illustrates it

was recommended that Father have monthly visits with Allison and that Father

desired his visit ations to be reduced because “ it was difficult to take off work as well

as secure transportation to those visits.” Although the trial court’s findings do not

indicate at what point in time Father missed seven visits with Allison since his

visitation began in January 2020, the record accurately reflects this number of missed

visitations. The trial court considered a previous permanency planning review order

which state s DSS “has transported [Allison] to Boone once for visitation and has

off ered to assist [Father] with transportation to and from visits.” Ms. Ballou’s

testimony also demonstrated that transportation played a factor in Father attending

his visitations, but that DSS did provide transportation for Father a few times

.

Accordingly

, there was c lear and convincing evidence to support sub

- finding of fact

10(ee).

8. Sub

- finding of Fact 10 (

ii)

¶ 49 Next, Father contends that the trial court’s sub

- finding of fact 10(ii) is

misleading. It states that F ather “ has had inconsistent communication with [DSS]

.

There was a period of time in the spring of 2020 and 2021 that there was little if any

communication

. ” We disagree.

¶ 50 At the hearing, Ms. Ballou testified to F ather’s inconsistent communication,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

explaining that as a part of his case plan, he was expected to contact her on a weekly

basis. Ms. Ballou described their communication as “ sporadic ” during the time of the

February 28, 2020 hearing and around the time of September 2020. Ms. Ballou

elaborated that her communication with Father was

[a] t some points better than others, but there certainly were times where

phone numbers would change, where we were unable to make contact,

but overall, I would say that he has been

-- at least once per month I

have been able to somehow make contact with him. But certainly, there

have been times in which he has been difficult to locate or that there

have been many attempts made to get that one contact in per month and

then there have been other months where he has been very

communicative where I have

-- I would say

-- regular contact with him.

Accordingly, there was c lear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s

finding of Father’s inconsistent communication with DSS.

9. Sub

- findin gs of Fact 10 ( ll ) and 10(pp)

¶ 51 Next, Father challenges sub

- finding of fact 10( ll ) as misleading

. It states that

“[t] he [trial c ourt ] finds that [Father’ s ] progress has not been adequate to meet the

needs standing in his way to provide proper and adequate care for [Allison]

. ” Father

contests sub

- finding of fact 10(pp)

, which states : “[Father] has failed to comply with

all but the most minimal requirements o f his family service case plan. The limited

progress made is not reasonable. ” Father argues that this finding is vague, does not

provide dates, and does not reference the progress Father made. We agree

.

¶ 52 Based upon the evidence before us, Father’s progress has been adequate toI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

address those elements in his family service case plan which would prevent him from

providing care to Allison. During the course of Father’s family service case plan

,

Father complet ed parenting classes in May 2020 and has continued efforts in learning

“how to become a better father” by communicating with the Children’s Council in

Boone and signing up for additional parenting classes

. Father also moved across the

state to be closer t o his daughter, facing homelessness to do so.

¶ 53 The record demonstrates that Father’s career is in the construction industry

and that he has consistently worked with employers on a contractual basis during

the course of his family service case plan

. According to Father, he obtained full

- time

employment in construction several months before the termination hearing by

working for his neighbor. This employment was verified by a letter from his neighbor.

The record also illustrates that Father obtained appropriate and permanent housing

in February 2021, has a one

- year lease on the home, is able to pay the monthly rent

for the home, and has prepared a room for his daughter to live with him. The record

shows that his driver ’s license was restored to him i n March 2021 and that he

purchased a vehicle in May 2021.

¶ 54 As to the substance abuse and mental health requirements in Father’s case

plan, Ms. Ballou testified Father ’s case plan was amended in March 2020 because of

“ some ongoing concerns, based on collateral information that there was potentially

some substance use and mental health issues. ” Yet these allegations of “ ongoingI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

concerns ” were never explained in her testimony or noted in previous court orders,

notes from DSS or GAL, or at the terminati on hearing. Nonetheless, Father

addressed th e added requirements in his amended case plan

. Father took a substance

abuse assessment in November 2020 and a combined mental health and substance

abuse assessment through Daymark in late December 2020. According to a letter

from a TASC Care Manager, Father completed two drug screens on December 21,

2020 and January 20, 2021, which were both negative. Father also joined Celebrate

Recovery, a weekly faith

- based recovery group, which was recommended to him by

TASC services. A Celebrate Recovery group leader confirmed Father had attended

group sessions since November 2020

. The TASC Care Manager’s letter further

stated

, “ [ t ] hroughout [Father’s] time in TASC it became apparent that he has taken

his pursuit o f a healthy, substance free lifestyle very seriously” and has “willingly

engaged in services to learn skills and tools to benefit him and support him each day.”

We note that there is no evidence of a positive drug screen throughout the pendency

of this case.

¶ 55 In terms of mental health, Father was diagnosed with borderline personality

disorder, and it was recommended that he engage in individual therapy and DBT

group therapy weekly. Ms. Ballou ’s testimony show ed Father attended one therapy

session and signed up for three group sessions during the month of April 2021 but

did not attend any session s

. Father testified he ha d been in communication with aI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

DBT therapy leader in Watauga County and had been given “ other outlets as far as

finding DBT therapy that would be

. . . conducive to [his] work schedule, she just

found something for [him] and [he ha d ] been communicating to her by email. ”

Father’s testimony also indicated he is aware of his impulsive behavior and is seeking

help for it through attending the Celebrate Recovery classes, church, and B ible

studies. Based on Father’s progress in seeking help and addressing DSS ’ s concerns

regarding his unsubstantiated mental health and substance abuse issues and his

sufficient progress in addressing the other elements of his case plan, we hold the trial

court’s sub

- findings of fact 10(ll) and 10(pp) are not supported by clear and convincing

evidence.

10. Sub

-

finding of Fact 10 (

nn)

¶ 56 Next, Father contends that the trial court ’s sub

- finding 10(nn) was misleading.

It states

, “ [ s ] ubstance use was the reason [Allison] came into foster care; [F ather ] has

not attended mental health or substance use therapy as recommended by his

assessments [.] ” Father argues that substance abuse was a reason for Allison’s

removal f

rom Mother, not Father

, and that this finding is inaccurate because Father

successful ly compl ied with the “substance abuse and mental health requirements” as

a condition of his probation. The record demonstrates that M other’s s ubstance abuse

was one of the reasons why Allison was placed into foster care, and we agree with

Father that Allison was placed into foster care because of Mother’s substance abuse,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

not his own. However, despite Father not living with Allison at the time she was

placed into foster care, Father’s case plan was amended in March 2020 to include a

substance abuse assessment requirement and that he follow any recommended

treatments therefrom. Father’s probation conditions also required him to take a

substance abuse assessment through TASC services

. After this assessment with

TASC, Father’s treatment recommendation was to go to TASC care management and

attend MRT 10 weekly. TASC services then referred Father to Daymark Recovery

,

who recommended him to SADBT weekly group meetings and Celebrate Recovery

meetings. Based upon these assessments and recommendations, Father pursued

several treatment options to address his alleged mental health and substance abuse

issues by attending Celebrate Recovery meeting s weekly, going to TASC care

management monthly, and pur chasing a MRT book on his own initiative

, al l of which

he was able to verify to the court.

¶ 57 To the extent that sub

- finding of fact 10(nn) states that Father has not

attended mental health or substance ab use therapy as recommended by his

assessments, we hold it to be unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and

overrule the sub

- finding

.

10 MRT or Moral Reconation Therapy is described as a “cognitive

- behavioral

treatment system that leads to enhanced m oral reasoning, better decision making, and

more appropriate behavior

. ” About MRT

, MRT

- M ORAL R ECONATION T HERAPY ®

, http://www.moral

- reconation

- therapy.com/about.html (last visited July 7, 2022).I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

11. Sub

-

findings of Fact 10 ( qq) and 10(rr)

¶ 58 F inally, F ather challenges sub

- findings of fact 10(qq) and 10(rr ) and argues

that they were misleading and omitted information. Finding of fact 10(qq) states:

[a]lthough [ Father ] knew prior to and after the child ’ s birth

that he might be the child ’ s father, he did not make himself

available for possible placement of the child when the child

was placed in DSS custody. Indeed, he made no such

efforts until the child was six months old and had been in

DSS custody for all but 7 days of her life.

Sub

- finding of fact 1 0(rr) states that Father “ previously denied having any

relationship with the child ’ s mother. It was only after the results of paternity testing

were revealed that [ Father ] admitted to such a relationship. ”

¶ 59 According to Mother’s testimony at the termination hearing, upon learning she

was pregnant, Father desired her to move with him to Statesville and told her he

would visit her during the pregnancy. Father testified he was not certain he was the

father of t he child because Mother “was involved with several other men.” In fact,

Mother’s testimony shows she was not certain who Allison’s father was and initially

gave the name of another individual as the putative father. The results of the

November 2019 pater nity test resolved this uncertainty. The record reflects that

after Mother contacted Father to inform him of Allison’s birth

, Father did not receive

further news concerning Allison until September 12, 2019, when he was served with

an order to submit to a DNA test

. The record is devoid of any evidence tending toI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

demonstrat e Father knew of Allison ’s removal from Mother or her placement in DSS

custody prior to DSS inform ing him

. Likewise, while the record shows Mother

contacted Father at the time of Allison ’s birth, there is no record evidence indicating

that she informed Father of Allison’s placement into DSS custody as a result of

Mother testing positive for drugs at birth.

¶ 60 Additionally, t here is no evidence in the r ecord to support the trial court’s

finding that Father previously had denied having any kind of relationship with

Mother. After DSS contacted Father in mid to late October 2019, Father took a

paternity test on November 4, 2019. There is no indication that Fath er refused to

take the paternity test or ever denied that he was in a relationship with Mother.

Further, there was no testimony to support this finding. Therefore, we hold that the

trial court lacked sufficient evidence to support its sub

- findings of fa ct 10(qq) and

10(rr).

C. Grounds to Terminate Parental Right s

¶ 61 Finally, Father conte nds the trial court erred by concluding that grounds

existed to terminate his parental rights based upon his willfully leaving Allison in a

placement outside the home f or more than 12 months without showing to the

satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress “under the circumstances has been

made in correcting those conditions which led to the removal” of Allison pursuant to

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2). We agr ee.I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

¶ 62 Although Allison remained in foster care for 21 months

, w e hold that the trial

court’s findings do not support the conclusion of law that Father has failed to make

reasonable progress “under the circumstances . . . in correcting those conditions which

led to the removal” of Allison.

¶ 63 Looking at the requirements of Father’s family service case plan, t he evidence

tends to show that Father made sufficient progress in meeting each el ement

. The

trial court found Father completed his parenting classes in May 2020

, and Ms. Ballou

testified that Father continued to pursue opportunities to improve his parenting

skills

, even beyond his case plan requirement

, through the Ch ildren’s Council in

Boone. Father’s case plan required visitations with Allison. To have a relationship

with Allison and to be able to have visitations with her, Father moved across the state

to be closer to his daughter

. Ms. Ballou testified that while F ather missed some visits

early on

, his visits had become consistent over time. Further, Ms. Ballou’s testimony

tended to show that since the September 11, 2020 hearing, Father has been consistent

in his visits with Allison ; and during visitations, Fathe r talks, plays, brings gifts, and

acts appropriately with his daughter.

¶ 64 Father’s case plan also require d him to obtain stable employment and suitable

housing. The record evidence shows Father obtained full

- time employment in his

field of construction several months before the termination hearing

. The record also

demonstrates Father obtained appropriate and permanent housing in February 2021

,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

signed a one

- year lease

, and ha d consistently paid his monthly rent

. Father was also

require d to obtain reliable transportation

. The record shows Father to ok the

necessary steps and paid all fees to have his driver ’s license reinstated in March 2021

.

Father purchased a vehicle in May 2021.

¶ 65 Concerning the substance abuse and mental hea lth requirements in Father’s

case plan, Father took a substance abuse assessment in November 2020 and a

combined mental health and substance abuse assessment in late December 2020.

Father was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, and it was recommended

that he engage in individual therapy and DBT group therapy. It is true that Father

attended only one therapy session and signed up for three group sessions during the

month of April 2021 but did not attend any session s. However, Father has taken

steps to register for DBT therapy by communic ating with a DBT therapy leader who

is assisting him in finding a session conducive to his work schedule. Father submitted

to a number o f drug tests

, all of which were either negative or inconclusive. Further,

Father’s probation conditions also required him to take a substance abuse assessment

through TASC services and comply with the recommendations, which he successfully

completed.

¶ 66 After addressing the requirements of Father’s case plan and the progress he

has made with each one, we not e a “parent’s failure to fully satisfy all elements of the

case plan goals is not the equivalent of a lack of reasonable progress.” In re J.S.L.

,I N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

1 77 N.C. App. 151, 163, 628 S.E.2d 387, 394 (2006) ( citation omitted). While Father

has not met every required element in his case plan , certainly, “ perfection is not

required to reach the ‘ reasonable ’ standard.” In re S.D. , 243 N.C. App. 65, 73, 776

S.E.2d 862, 867 (2015). As noted above, some portions of the trial court ’ s findings of

fact are not s upported by the evidence, “and although they are just portions of the

findings, they are findings on the pivotal issues.” In re S.D. , 243 N.C. App. 65, 7 3,

776 S.E.2d 862, 867 (2015). When we consider the many ways Father compl ied with

his case plan in order to correct the conditions that led to Allison’s placement into

custody

, together with the findings of the trial court we overruled , we hold that the

remaining findings of fact do not support the conclusion of law that Father has failed

to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions which led to Allison’s

removal and do not warrant the termination of his parental rights.

III. Conclusion

¶ 67 We hold that competent evidence in the record show s Father made reasonable

progress in correcting the conditions which led to Allison being removed from her

home and placed in DSS custody

. While Father has not fully satisfied all elements of

his case plan , he has not shown “a prolonged inability to improve [his] situation, ”

which would warrant terminating his parental rights to Allison. In re B.J.H. , ¶ 12.

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s findings are not supported by c lear and

convincing ev idence and the trial court erred in concluding that grounds existed toI N R E : A.D.

2022

- NCCOA

- 551

Opinion of the Court

terminate Father ’s parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111 (a)(2)

.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order terminating Father ’s parental rights

to his minor child.

REVERSED

.

Judge s DIETZ and MURPHY concur.