An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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

- 429 Filed: 6 October 2015
Caldwell County, No. 13 J A 5 IN THE MATTER OF: A.K.L.N.
Appeal by R esponden t

- F ather from order s entered 22 January 2015 by Judge Mark L. Killian in Caldwell County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 September 2015

. Lauren Vaughan for Caldwell County Department of Social Services, petitioner

- appellee. Stephen M. Schoeberle for guardian ad litem. Peter Wood for r espondent

- appellant.

INMAN , Judge.
Respondent

- Father appeals from order s terminating his parental rights to his daughter, A.K.L.N. (hereinafter referenced by the pseudonym of “Amy”). After careful review, w e af

firm the order.

Factual Background On 10 January 2013, the Caldwell County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed a petition alleging that Amy was a ne glected and dependent juvenile. The court adjudicated Amy to be a depende nt juvenile on 6 Februar y 2013. DSS filedI N RE : A.K.L.N. Opinion of the Court

- 2

- a motion to terminate the parental rights of both of Amy’s parents on 5 March 2014. Amy’s mother relinquished her parental rights to Amy on 27 March 2014. The court filed an adjudication order on 12 November 2014, concluding grounds existed t o terminate R espondent’s

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

1111(a) (1), (2), (3), and (6) (2013). On 22 January 2015, the co urt filed an order terminating R espondent’s

- Father’s parental rights. Respondent

- Father filed not ice of appeal on 5 February 2015. Attorney Peter W ood was appointed to represent R espondent

- Father on appeal. Mr. Wood filed a brief on R espondent’s

- Father’s behalf pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(d) in which he states that after conducting “a conscienti ous and thorough

r eview of the record on appeal[,]” he finds “ the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief and that the appeal would be fri volous.” He states that he contacted trial counsel, who was unable to think of any meritorious issues, and the Office of the Appellate Defender, which was also unable to find any issues of merit in the record . Mr. Wood requests this Court to review the record to determine whether he has overlooked any errors that would entitle R espon dent

Father to a new hearing or other relief. Mr. Wood attached to the brief a copy of a letter he wrote to R espondent

- Father advising him of the foregoing actions he had taken. He also advised R espondent

Father that he could file his own written argum ents directly with this Court on orI N RE : A.K.L.N. Opinion of the Court

- 3

- before 5 June 2015. To assist R espondent

- Father with this task , Mr. Wood provided him with copies of the brief filed by counsel, the trial transcript, and the record on appeal. Respondent

- Father has not filed his own written arguments. Standard of Review “The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases is whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether these findings, in turn, support the c onclusions of l aw. We then consider, based on the grounds found for termination, whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding termination to be in the best interest of the child.” In re Shepard , 162 N.C. App. 215, 221

- 22, 591 S.E.2d 1, 6 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied sub nom

. In re D.S ., 358 N.C. 543, 599 S.E.2d 42 (2004). Analysis In the brief filed on R espondent’s

- Father’s behalf, Mr. Wood contends that the
court erred by terminating R espondent’s

- Father’s parental rights on the ground that Amy is a dependent juvenile. He argues this adjudication is not supported by clear, cogent , and convincing evidence. Mr. Wood, however, acknowledges that the other three ground s found by the court are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and the findings of fact , and that a finding of only one ground is necessary to support termination of parental rights. See In re S.N. , 194 N.C. App. 142, 146, 669 S.E.2d 55, 59 (2008), aff’d per curiam , 363 N.C. 368, 677 S.E.2d 455 (2009). TheI N RE : A.K.L.N. Opinion of the Court

- 4

- ultimate result of termination of Respondent’s

- Father’s parental rights therefore remains the sam e. Mr. Wood concedes that “it would be frivolous to argue that the trial court made

an a rbitrary or unreasoned decision when it determined that termination of the [Respondent’s

- Father’s ] parental rights was i n Amy’s best interest.” After careful review of the record, we agree tha t the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating R espondent’s

- Father’s rights

. Conclusion After reviewing the record on appeal and transcript, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error . We accordingly affirm the court’s adjudication and disposition orders. AFFIRMED. Judges BRYANT and MC CULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).