IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-151

No. 333A21

Filed 17 December 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: J.I.T. 

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 18 

March 2021 by Judge Ellen Shelley in District Court, Rutherford County. This 

matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 6 December 2021 but 

was determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 

30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

W. Martin Jarrad, for petitioner-mother. 

Edward Eldred, for respondent-appellant.

BERGER, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent, the father of J.I.T. (Joe),

1 appeals from the trial court’s order 

terminating his parental rights. Respondent’s counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant 

to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. After review, we 

conclude the purported issues addressed by counsel in support of the appeal are

meritless and therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

 

1 A pseudonym is used in this opinion to protect the identity of the juvenile and for 

ease of reading.
IN RE J.I.T.

2021-NCSC-151

Opinion of the Court

¶ 2 Joe was born on April 22, 2012. Joe’s mother filed a petition to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights on June 1, 2020, alleging as grounds for termination that 

respondent willfully abandoned Joe and willfully failed to pay costs of his care and 

maintenance. A hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights was held on 

March 8, 2021. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. Respondent’s counsel

moved to continue the hearing, which the trial court denied. 

¶ 3 Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court made the 

following findings of fact:

6. The Respondent had sporadic contact with the minor

child prior to the ending of the relationship between the 

Petitioner and the Respondent when the minor child was 

seven months old. Since that time, the only contact the

Respondent had with the minor child consisted of the 

Respondent attending the minor child’s second birthday 

and spending approximately and [sic] hour with the minor 

child and the Petitioner at a park when the minor child was 

two years old. Since that time, and prior to the filing of the

petition in this matter, the Respondent has been in the 

presence of the minor child in public settings, once even 

passing by the minor child and the Petitioner on the same 

aisle at Wal Mart [sic], and during none of these times in a 

public setting did the Respondent ever make any attempt 

at communication with the minor child or even

acknowledge him. The Respondent has never established a 

parent-child relationship with the minor child, or any

emotional bond.

7. At the time of the filing of this action, the Respondent 

had willfully abandoned the juvenile for at least six 

consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of 

this petition.
IN RE J.I.T.

2021-NCSC-151

Opinion of the Court

8. The Respondent was ordered to pay for the support of 

the minor child in Rutherford County file number 13 CVD 

222. For a period of one year or more next preceding the 

filing of the Petition in this matter, the Respondent has 

willfully failed without justification to pay for the care, 

support, and education of the minor child as required by

the above-referenced child support order. Specifically, as of 

the date of this order, the last child support payment made 

by the Respondent for the support of the minor child was 

in the amount of $18.29 on March 13, 2019.

9. The Respondent father has willfully abandoned the 

minor child for at least six consecutive months 

immediately preceding the filing of this action.

10. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1111(4), and (7), the 

foregoing facts support and justify the termination of 

Respondent’s parental rights.

The trial court concluded that termination was in Joe’s best interests. Respondent 

appeals.

¶ 4 Respondent’s appellate counsel states that he has reviewed the record and 

discussed the case with the Office of the Parent Defender. Counsel could not identify 

a meritorious issue for appeal, and he subsequently filed a no-merit brief on 

respondent’s behalf under Rule 3.1(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

¶ 5 Counsel for respondent identified three issues that could arguably support an 

appeal here. Counsel states that the trial court’s finding of willful abandonment was 

not supported by the evidence. Counsel acknowledges, however, that the issue lacks 

merit because the independent finding of willful failure to pay child support is 
IN RE J.I.T.

2021-NCSC-151

Opinion of the Court

evidence which supports a finding justifying termination of parental rights. Second, 

counsel also asserts that another issue on appeal could be that the trial court abused 

its discretion when it denied counsel’s motion to continue. Regarding this issue, 

counsel acknowledges, however, that respondent failed to preserve any argument 

related to lack of notice and the denial of the motion to continue. Finally, counsel 

states that respondent may have an argument related to ineffective assistance of 

counsel, but that, in his opinion, this issue likewise lacks merit. Counsel concedes 

that respondent “cannot show a probability of a different result given [the] testimony 

concerning the status of [respondent]’s child support payments.” 

¶ 6 Counsel has advised respondent and provided him with the documents 

necessary to pursue his appeal. Respondent was appropriately notified of his right 

to file pro se written arguments on his own behalf pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) and he has 

failed to file a brief or any additional documents with this Court. 

¶ 7 This Court conducts an independent review of issues identified by respondent’s 

counsel in a no-merit brief filed under Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402, 

831 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2019). We have carefully reviewed the issues identified by 

counsel in the no-merit brief in light of the entire record. We are satisfied that the 

trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights was supported by clear, 

cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. Accordingly, 

we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights. 
IN RE J.I.T.

2021-NCSC-151

Opinion of the Court

AFFIRMED.