An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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. COA15-429

Filed: 6 October 2015

Caldwell County, No. 13 JA 5

IN THE MATTER OF: A.K.L.N. 

Appeal by Respondent-Father from orders 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 respondent-appellant. 

INMAN, Judge.

Respondent-Father appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his 

daughter, A.K.L.N. (hereinafter referenced by the pseudonym of “Amy”). After 

careful review, we affirm the order. 

Factual Background

On 10 January 2013, the Caldwell County Department of Social Services 

(“DSS”) filed a petition alleging that Amy was a neglected and dependent juvenile. 

The court adjudicated Amy to be a dependent juvenile on 6 February 2013. DSS filed 
IN 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 to

terminate Respondent’s-Father’s parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B1111(a)(1), (2), (3), and (6) (2013). On 22 January 2015, the court filed an order 

terminating Respondent’s-Father’s parental rights. Respondent-Father filed notice 

of appeal on 5 February 2015. Attorney Peter Wood was appointed to represent 

Respondent-Father on appeal. 

Mr. Wood filed a brief on Respondent’s-Father’s behalf pursuant to N.C.R. App. 

P. 3.1(d) in which he states that after conducting “a conscientious and thorough 

review 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 frivolous.” 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 RespondentFather to a new hearing or other relief. 

Mr. Wood attached to the brief a copy of a letter he wrote to Respondent-Father

advising him of the foregoing actions he had taken. He also advised RespondentFather that he could file his own written arguments directly with this Court on or 
IN RE: A.K.L.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

before 5 June 2015. To assist Respondent-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 conclusions of law. 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 Respondent’s-Father’s behalf, Mr. Wood contends that the 

court erred by terminating Respondent’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 grounds 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). The 
IN RE: A.K.L.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

ultimate result of termination of Respondent’s-Father’s parental rights therefore 

remains the same.

Mr. Wood concedes that “it would be frivolous to argue that the trial court made 

an arbitrary or unreasoned decision when it determined that termination of the 

[Respondent’s-Father’s] parental rights was in Amy’s best interest.” After careful 

review of the record, we agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

terminating Respondent’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 MCCULLOUGH concur. 

Report per Rule 30(e).