IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 39A20 Filed 20 November 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: X.P.W., B.W.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 11 October 2019 by Judge Elizabeth T. Trosch in District Court, Mecklenburg County. This matter was calendared in the Supreme Court on 7 October 2020 but determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina R ules of Appellate Procedure.
No brief for petitioner

- appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services , Youth and Family Services Division

. Kelsey L. Kings b ery and Michelle C. Pre n dergast , for appellee Guardian ad Litem. Jeffrey L. Miller for respondent

- appellant father

. HUDSON, Justice. Respondent

- fa ther appeals from the trial court’s 11 October 2019 order terminating h is parental rights to his minor child ren X.P.W. and B.W

. ( “Zeb” and “Ann” ). 1 Counsel for respondent

- fa ther has filed a no

- merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues

1 P seudonyms are used to protect the identity of the juveniles and for ease of reading.I N RE X.P.W. AND B.W. Opinion of the Court

- 2

- identified by counsel in respondent

- fa ther’s brief are meritless and therefore affirm the trial court’s order. On 14 March 20 18, the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services Division (YFS) became involved with respondent

- father’s family when Zeb tested positive for opiates at birth. After additional testing was performed on Zeb, he also tested positive for Fentany l , codeine, and morphine. The mother subsequently admitted to YFS that she used non

- prescribed oxycodone and Xanax , and had also used Percocet shortly before Zeb’s birth. YFS requested that both respondent

- father and the mother obtain a substance abuse assessment. On 24 March 2018, the mother was found unresponsive by respondent

- father on the floor of their hotel room after she suffered an overdose. Emergency responders revived the mother using Narca n , and she was taken to the hospital. Ann and several older siblings no t party to this appeal were present in the hotel room when the mother overdosed . The mother told YFS that she took too much oxycodone, although hospital records reflect that she informed hospital staff that she had used he roin. On 26 March 2018, Ann was temporarily placed with the father of her older siblings. On 4 April 201 8 , YFS filed a petition alleging that Zeb and Ann were neglected and dependent juveniles. YFS recounted how it became involved with the family and clai med the mother had a history of substance abuse. YFS stated that Ann had previously tested positive for opiates at her birth, that the mother had overdosed in August 2017 and had to be revived with six doses of Narca n , and that the mother alsoI N RE X.P.W. AND B.W. Opinion of the Court

- 3

- tested positive for opiates on 18 January 2018 while on probation. YFS also claimed that r espondent

- father was on probation and had a history of drug

- related offenses. YFS noted that both respondent

- father and the mother were supposed to obtain substance a buse assessments following Ann’s birth . Respondent

- father went to obtain an assessment on 3 April 201 8 , but YFS had not received the results as of the filing of the petition. The mother had received an assessment on 29 March 201 8 but did not attend recomme nded detox. DSS asserted , however, that neither respondent

father or the mother had presented relatives or other individuals who could provide care for the juveniles

. Accordingly, DSS obtained non

- secure custody and placed the juveniles in foster care

. Fo llowing a hearing held on 23 May 2018, and in accordance with a mediated case plan agreement, the trial court entered an order on 29 June 2018 in which it adjudicated Zeb and Ann neglected juveniles. The trial court ordered respondent

father and the mother to comply with a case plan that included substance abuse treatment, random drugs screens, and maintain ing sobriety . The trial court further ordered that the primary permanent plan for the juveniles be reunification with a secondary plan of adoption. The trial court held review hearings on 3 August 2018 and 24 October 2018. In orders entered from those hearings on 21 August 2018 and 19 November 2018 , respectively, the trial court found that respondent

- father and the mother had “engaged in a pattern of excuses” and had not complied with their case plans

. TheI N RE X.P.W. AND B.W. Opinion of the Court

- 4

- trial court noted that both respondent

- father and the mother had positive drug screens, failed to engage in recommended substance abuse treatment, and were inconsistent with visitation. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered that reunification remain part of the permanent plan for the juveniles. Following a permanency planning review hearing held on 14 January 2019, the trial court entered an orde r on 4 February 2019 in which it found that respondent

father and the mother were not actively participating in their case plans and were not cooperating with YFS or the guardian ad litem. The trial court also noted that neither respondent

- father n or the mother had seen the juveniles since 28 September
2018 an d that when they had attend ed visitation they appeared to be under the influence of substances. Both parents tested positive for drugs on 21 August 2018. Additionally, the trial court found that YFS last had contact with the mother on 14 September 2018, an d respondent

- father last had contact with YFS on 24 October 2018. Accordingly , the trial court suspended reunification efforts, changed the primary permanent plan for the juveniles to adoption, and changed the secondary permanent plan to guardianship. The trial court also concluded that termination of respondent

- father’s and the mother’s parental rights w ere in the juveniles’ best interests. On 1 April 2019 , YFS filed a petition to terminate respondent

- father ’s and the mother’s parental rights on the groun ds of neglect, dependency , and abandonment

. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1111(a)(1), (6 )

– ( 7) (2019). On 6 June 2019, respondent

- father filedI N RE X.P.W. AND B.W. Opinion of the Court

- 5

- an answer denying the material allegations in the petition. The mother passed away due to Fentanyl and cocaine toxicity on 14 June 2019. Following hearings held in August and September 2019, the trial court entered an order o n 11 October 2019 in which it determined grounds existed to terminate respondent

- father ’s parental rights due to neglect and abandonment. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1 111(a)(1) , ( 7 ). The trial court further concluded it was in Zeb’s and Ann’s best interests that respondent

- father ’s parental rights be terminated. Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondent

father ’s parental rights. Respondent

- father appeals. Coun sel for respondent

- father has filed a no

- merit brief on his client’s behalf under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel has advised respondent

- father of h is right to file pro se written arguments on his own behalf and prov ided him with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent

- father has not submitted written arguments to this Court. We independently review issues identified by counsel in a no

- merit brief filed pursuant to Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2 019). Respondent

- father ’s counsel identified three issues that could arguably support an appeal , but he also explained why these issues lacked merit

. Based upon our careful review of the issues identified in the no

- merit brief and in light of our consideration of the entire record and applicable law , we are satisfied that the trial court’s 11 October 2019 order is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legalI N RE X.P.W. AND B.W. Opinion of the Court

- 6

- grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order te rminating respondent

father ’s parental rights. AFFIRMED.