IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA22-582

Filed 06 June 2023

Forsyth County, Nos. 18 JA 123-25

IN THE MATTER OF:

N.T., K.M., A.C.

Appeal by Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father from order entered 28 

March 2022 by Judge David E. Sipprell in Forsyth County District Court. Heard in 

the Court of Appeals 10 May 2023.

Melissa Starr Livesay, Assistant County Attorney, for Petitioner-Appellee 

Forsyth County Department of Social Services.

Ellis & Winters LLP, by James M. Weiss, for Appellee-Guardian ad Litem.

Anné C. Wright for Respondent-Appellant Mother.

Kimberly Connor Benton for Respondent-Appellant Father.

COLLINS, Judge.

Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father appeal from the trial court’s order 

ceasing reunification efforts with their minor children Nate, Kat, and Amy1 and 

awarding guardianship of the children to Nate’s paternal grandparents. We affirm.

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of the minor children. See N.C. R. App. P. 42.
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Mother is the biological mother of Nate, Kat, and Amy. Father is the biological 

father of Nate and the caretaker of Kat and Amy.2

Forsyth County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) received a report on 6 

June 2018 that one-month old Nate had been admitted to Brenner’s Children’s 

Hospital with an unexplained skull fracture. Although Mother and Father told DSS 

that they were the sole caretakers for Nate, neither parent could provide an 

explanation for Nate’s injuries. Nate was diagnosed with bilateral skull fractures,

bilateral scalp hematomas, and a small extra-axial hemorrhage along the right 

cerebral portion of his brain. Dr. Stacy Thomas with Brenner’s Children’s Hospital 

opined that Nate’s injuries were the result of non-accidental trauma.

DSS filed petitions on 11 June 2018 alleging that Nate was abused and 

neglected, and that Kat and Amy were neglected. DSS obtained nonsecure custody 

of all three children and placed them with Nate’s paternal grandparents. After a 

hearing on 17 October 2018, the trial court entered an order on 24 January 2019 

adjudicating all three children neglected and ordering that custody remain with DSS.

Throughout the life of the case, Mother maintained that Nate’s injuries were 

caused by birth trauma. Furthermore, at a permanency planning meeting on 4 April 

2 Kat and Amy’s putative father is not a party to this appeal.
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

2019, Father presented new information to DSS and the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) 

regarding the possible cause of Nate’s injuries:

The Father placed [Nate’s] car seat on the ground. [Amy] 

and [Kat] were in the back seat of the car arguing and the 

Father attempted to stop the girls from arguing when his 

foot hit [Nate’s] car se[a]t and [Nate] slipped out of the car 

seat onto the ground. The Mother was in the passenger 

seat but did not witness the accident. The Mother asked 

what happened after hearing [Nate] cry, the Father stated 

nothing.

The trial court entered a permanency planning order on 15 May 2019, setting 

a primary plan of guardianship and a secondary plan of reunification. Following a 

hearing on 1 July 2020, the trial court entered an order on 31 August 2020 ceasing 

reunification efforts with Mother and Father, eliminating reunification as a 

secondary plan, and awarding guardianship of all three children to Nate’s paternal 

grandparents. Both Mother and Father appealed, and this Court vacated the 

permanency planning order and remanded to the trial court to “determine whether 

Nate is an Indian Child for purposes of ICWA and to ensure compliance with ICWA’s 

notice requirements.” In re N.T., 278 N.C. App. 811, 860 S.E.2d 343 (2021) 

(unpublished).

On remand, the trial court held an additional hearing on 21 February 2022 

before entering an order on 28 March 2022 finding that ICWA did not apply, ceasing 

reunification efforts, eliminating reunification as a secondary plan, and awarding 

guardianship of all three children to Nate’s paternal grandparents.
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

Mother and Father timely appealed.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

“This Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine 

whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based 

upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s 

conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to 

disposition.” In re M.T., 285 N.C. App. 305, 322, 877 S.E.2d 732, 746 (2022) (quotation 

marks and citations omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s 

ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” 

In re J.M., 276 N.C. App. 291, 299, 856 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2021) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “At the disposition stage, the trial court solely considers the best 

interests of the child. . . .” In re J.H., 373 N.C. 264, 268, 837 S.E.2d 847, 850 (2020) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

The trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by any 

competent evidence, notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record. In re C.M., 273 

N.C. App. 427, 430, 848 S.E.2d 749, 751-52 (2020). The trial court’s conclusions of 

law are reviewed de novo. In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. 269, 272-73, 802 S.E.2d 588, 591 

(2017).
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

B. Reunification

Mother and Father both contend that the trial court erred by ceasing 

reunification efforts and eliminating reunification as a permanent plan because the

findings of fact made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2 are not supported by 

competent evidence.

At a permanency planning hearing, reunification shall be a primary or 

secondary plan unless, inter alia, the court makes written findings that reunification 

efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s 

health or safety. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b) (2022). The trial court must also make 

written findings of fact concerning:

(1) Whether the parent is making adequate progress within 

a reasonable period of time under the plan.

(2) Whether the parent is actively participating in or 

cooperating with the plan, the department, and the 

guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

(3) Whether the parent remains available to the court, the 

department, and the guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

(4) Whether the parent is acting in a manner inconsistent 

with the health or safety of the juvenile.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) (2022).

Here, the trial court made the following findings of fact:

39. The [c]ourt ordered the Respondent Mother . . . to 

comply with all of the following in order to correct the 

circumstances which caused the children’s removal from 

her care and custody and adjudication if she wished to be 

reunified with the children:
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

a. Notify FCDSS of any changes in address, 

telephone number, income, employment, or 

household composition within 24 hours:

[Mother] has reported that none of this information 

has changed with the exception of her having a baby 

in January 2022. Since this case has been pending 

and [Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] have been removed, 

[Mother] has had three children.

b. Comply with any recommendations made as 

a result of the parenting capacity assessment 

completed and provide any and all 

documentation regarding how [Nate] received 

his injuries other than birth trauma:

[Mother] reports that she continues to attend 

individual counseling with Ms. Anne Doherty 

monthly. However, when asked if therapy was 

helpful or beneficial, [Mother] responded that it was 

not beneficial or helpful, but stated she “will keep 

trying it.” Previously, [Mother] signed a limited 

release which only allowed her attorney to obtain 

her records. Therefore, FCDSS has never received 

any mental health records to be able to verify that 

[Mother] is attending therapy or the nature of 

objective of the therapy attended.

On February 8, 2022, FCDSS Social Work 

Supervisor Burleson received release of information 

forms from Attorney Mortis for [Mother’s] mental 

health records. Supervisor Burleson then requested 

records from Ms. Doherty. To date, FCDSS has not 

received any records.

As of January 2022, [Mother] has not provided any 

additional information or documentation to FCDSS 

regarding how [Nate] received his injuries, other 

than birth trauma and the incident with the car seat 

that was provided to the [c]ourt at the April 12, 2019 

Permanency Planning Hearing.

On February 4, 2020, FCDSS received 

documentation from Stokes County DSS, the county 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

in which [Mother] and [Father] have resided since 

after the children’s removal. The documentation 

shows that [Mother] told a CPS worker on 

September 12, 2020, “I don’t know how he got the 

injury. I guess I should have just told them my other 

kid did it or something. I can’t lie.” More recently, 

on June 2, 2020, [Mother] reported that she believes 

that [Nate] has a medical disorder that would 

account for his injuries. She reported that she 

continues to believe that birth trauma could be a 

cause of his injuries.

As of January 2022, [Mother] continues to report to 

FCDSS that birth trauma is the cause of [Nate’s] 

injuries.

c. Maintain a safe and stable living 

environment:

FCDSS went out to the home of [Father] and 

[Mother] on November 24, 2021 and observed the 

parents in the home with two toddlers. The home 

was sufficiently baby-proofed, however there were 

stacks of items throughout the home that were out 

of reach of the children at that time, however, could 

pose an issue as the children grow and become more 

mobile. The family is making plans to repurpose 

their garage into a room for the older girls to share, 

there is a bedroom for the three children who remain 

in [Father] and [Mother’s] custody, and a bedroom 

for [Nate].

In her testimony, Supervisor Burleson 

acknowledged that she observed no safety concern in 

[Mother and Father’s] home. However, Supervisor 

Burleson was not at the home to assess the safety 

and welfare of the three children who reside with 

[Mother] and [Father]. Supervisor Burleson’s 

observation was that the home was a physically safe 

location for the children and there were no apparent 

issues with the two children who were present in the 

home at the time of her visit.

d. Demonstrate the ability to meet the basic 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

needs of [Amy], [Kat], and [Nate]:

[Nate’s paternal grandparents] report that the 

parents have provided items for the children, such 

as clothing, snacks, and toiletries and financial 

support.

e. Demonstrate skills learned in parenting 

classes during visitation with [Amy], [Kat], 

and [Nate]:

Per reports of the children, caregivers and parents, 

the visits have been going well and earlier in COVID 

it was harder to have visits in person. The family 

reports that they have 8 hours of visitation per week, 

however, when looking at the closing court order 

from July 2020, the parents were to get a minimum 

of 4 hours per week.

[Nate’s paternal grandparents] have expressed that 

the 8 hours per week poses a hardship at times as 

they want to follow the [c]ourt’s order, however with 

the parents’ work schedules, 8 hours per week 

presents a challenge. FCDSS would be 

recommending no more than 4 hours per week.

[Mother] and [Father] try to make valuable use of 

the time to engage the older girls in activities and 

crafts. [Father], due to his work schedule at nights, 

calls the children in the morning before going to 

school and speaks with them.

. . . . 

41. Around June 2, 2020, [Mother] reported that she was 

going monthly for counseling, but she stopped for two 

months. At that time in regards to her sessions, [Mother] 

reported that “They’re going,” “I talk to her,” and “We’re 

working on stuff.” [Mother] would not provide more 

information to FCDSS about what she is learning in 

sessions or her therapeutic goals.

. . . .

44. The Respondent Father . . . was ordered to comply with 

all of the following in order to correct the circumstances 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

which caused his child’s removal from his care and custody 

and adjudication if he wished to be reunified:

a. Notify FCDSS of any changes in address, 

telephone number, income, employment, or 

household composition within 24 hours:

[Father] reports the only change for him is his 

employment. He is now employed . . . driving a 

forklift and currently works 2nd shift as of September 

2021.

b. Comply with any recommendations made as 

a result of the parenting capacity assessment 

completed and provide any and all 

documentation regarding how [Nate] received 

his injuries other than birth trauma:

[Father] reports that he continues to be engaged 

with Mr. George Hage with Counseling and 

Spirituality and going monthly. FCDSS has 

inquired about the releases for Mr. Hage and 

[Father] reported FCDSS would have to get those 

from his attorney.

As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS had not received 

any releases for [Father], therefore has no records 

for verification that he is attending therapy or the 

nature or goals of any therapy attended.

[Father] has not provided any additional 

information or documentation to FCDSS regarding 

how [Nate] received his injuries, other than birth 

trauma and the incident with the car seat that was 

provided to the [c]ourt at the April 12, 2019 

Permanency Planning Hearing. [Father] concurs 

with [Mother] that [Nate] may have a medical 

condition or that the injuries in question were 

caused by birth trauma.

c. Maintain a safe and stable living 

environment:

FCDSS went out to the home of [Father] and 

[Mother] on November 24, 2021 and observed the 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

parents in the home with 2 toddlers. The home was 

sufficiently baby-proofed, however there were stacks 

of items throughout the home that were out of reach 

of the children at that time, however, could pose an 

issue as the children grow and become more mobile. 

The family is making plans to repurpose their 

garage into a room for the older girls to share, there 

is a bedroom for the 2 toddler and now new infant to 

share and then a bedroom for [Nate]. The home is 

in good condition and was appropriate.

d. Demonstrate the ability to meet the basic 

needs of [Amy], [Kat], and [Nate]:

[Nate’s paternal grandparents] report that the 

parents have provided items for the children, such 

as clothing, snacks, and toiletries and financial 

support.

e. Demonstrate skills learned in parenting 

classes during visitation with [Amy], [Kat], 

and [Nate]:

Per reports of the children, caregivers and parents, 

the visits have been going well and earlier in COVID 

it was harder to have visits in person. The family 

reports that they have 8 hours of visitation per week, 

however, when looking at the closing court order 

from July 2020, the parents were to get a minimum 

of 4 hours per week. The relatives have expressed 

that the 8 hours per week poses a hardship at times 

as they want to follow the courts order, however if 

the parents’ work schedules, 8 hours per week 

presents a challenge. FCDSS would be 

recommending no more than 4 hours per week. 

[Father] and [Mother] try to make valuable use of 

the time to engage the older girls in activities and 

crafts. [Father], due to his work schedule at nights, 

calls the children in the morning before going to 

school and after school and speaks with them.

. . . . 

46. [Father] reported to FCDSS that he continues to be 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

engaged in counseling with Mr. George Hage and he 

attends monthly. [Father] would not provide more 

information about what he is learning in sessions and or 

the nature or goals of his therapy. In November 2021, 

[Father] reported to FCDSS Social Work Supervisor Dana 

Burleson that he doesn’t feel therapy is beneficial, stating 

“It provides a little bit of help towards other topics but not 

towards this situation.” FCDSS has not received releases 

by [Father] to request records from Mr. Hage. FCDSS has 

also reached out to his attorney for assistance in obtaining 

signed releases. As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS has not 

received signed releases or records from Mr. Hage. During 

the hearing on February 21, 2022, [Father] provided 

documentation to FCDSS regarding his work with Mr. 

Hage.

. . . .

58. FCDSS has had difficulty throughout the life of this 

case in communicating with the parents. The parents have 

not willingly provided information when requested by 

FCDSS. Despite this difficulty, FCDSS has received 

information that the parents complied with classes and 

assessments.

. . . .

105. The minor children cannot return to the home or care 

of a parent immediately, within the next six months, or 

within any reasonable period of time.

106. The immediate return of the minor children to the 

home of a parent would be contrary to their health, safety, 

and welfare.

107. Further reunification efforts would be clearly 

unsuccessful and inconsistent with the minor children’s 

health and safety. The children have been outside of the 

parents’ home and care for approximately 1,350 days. The 

cause of [Nate’s] injuries remains unknown. The causal or 

contributing factors leading up to and surrounding [Nate’s] 

injuries remain unknown. It is unlikely more information 

will be gained by the passage of more time, and further 

delay to the children’s permanence is not in their best 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

interests.

114. Pursuant to NCGS §7B-906.2, the permanent plan of 

reunification would not be successful because:

a. The parents have not made adequate progress 

within a reasonable period of time towards the 

objective of reunification. While the parents have 

attended services, the intended purpose and benefit 

of the services has not been achieved; IE: The 

parents have attended therapy sessions. However, 

the therapy sessions have not examined the causes 

or circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] injuries while 

in the parents’ care.

b. The parents have not been cooperative or 

forthcoming with FCDSS or the GAL program. 

FCDSS has been unable to effectively communicate 

and gain necessary information from the parents.

c. The parents are present and available to the 

[c]ourt today. The parents have not been regularly 

available to FCDSS and the GAL outside of court.

d. The parents have acted in a manner that is 

inconsistent with the health or safety of the minor 

children. After more than 1,300 [days] outside the 

home and care of the Respondent Parents, there is 

no information about the cause of [Nate’s] injuries or 

the circumstances which led to those injuries while 

in the care of [Mother] and [Father].

In making these findings, the trial court considered testimony from DSS Social 

Work Supervisor Dana Burleson, GAL District Administrator Melissa Bell, Nate’s 

paternal grandfather, Mother, and Father. The trial court also considered reports 

from DSS, the GAL, and Mother. Finally, the trial court considered letters from Ann 

Doherty, Mother’s therapist, and George Hage, Father’s therapist. This competent

evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, even if there exists contradictory 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

evidence in the record. In re C.M., 273 N.C. App. at 430, 848 S.E.2d at 751-52; see 

also In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1, 11, 822 S.E.2d 693, 700 (2019) (“[A]n important aspect 

of the trial court’s role as finder of fact is assessing the demeanor and credibility of 

witnesses, often in light of inconsistencies or contradictory evidence. It is in part 

because the trial court is uniquely situated to make this credibility determination 

that appellate courts may not reweigh the underlying evidence presented at trial.”).

Accordingly, the trial court did not err by ceasing reunification efforts because 

its findings of fact under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2 are supported by competent 

evidence.

C. Guardianship

1. Unfitness/Acting Inconsistently with Constitutionally Protected 

Status

Mother contends that “[t]he trial court should not have applied a best interest 

standard as in doing it failed to protect [Mother’s] constitutional rights as a parent.” 

Similarly, Father contends that the trial court erred by applying “the best interest of 

the child standard in awarding guardianship of Nate to the paternal grandparents as 

there was insufficient evidence his father was unfit or had acted inconsistently with 

his constitutionally protected rights as a parent.”

“A parent has an interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of 

his or her children that is protected by the United States Constitution.” Boseman v. 

Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549, 704 S.E.2d 494, 502 (2010) (quotation marks, brackets, 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

and citations omitted). “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the 

custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a nonparent regarding those 

children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’ 

standard.” Id., 704 S.E.2d at 503 (citation omitted). “However, a parent can forfeit 

their right to custody of their child by unfitness or acting inconsistently with their 

constitutionally protected status.” In re J.M., 276 N.C. App. at 307, 856 S.E.2d at

915 (citation omitted). “Findings in support of the conclusion that a parent acted 

inconsistently with the parent’s constitutionally protected status are required to be 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. at 283, 802 

S.E.2d at 597 (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court made the following relevant findings:

116. The Respondent [Mother] is not a fit and proper 

person to have the care, custody, and control of the minor 

children concerned. [Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] were 

adjudicated neglected individuals after [Nate] sustained 

non-accidental injuries in the care of [Mother] and 

[Father]. The cause of and circumstances surrounding 

those injuries remain unknown and unaddressed.

117. The Respondent [Mother] has acted in a manner that 

is inconsistent with her constitutionally protected status as 

a parent. While [Mother] has occasionally provided 

financial support and necessary items for the care of these 

three minor children, [Nate’s paternal grandparents] have 

assumed the primary responsibility for financially 

supporting and meeting the children’s needs since June 11, 

2018.

118. The Respondent Father . . . is not a fit and proper 

person to have the care, custody, and control of the minor 

child [Nate]. [Nate] and his siblings [Kat] and [Amy] were 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

adjudicated neglected juveniles after [Nate] sustained 

non-accidental injuries in the care of [Mother] and 

[Father]. The cause of and circumstances surrounding 

those injuries remain unknown and unaddressed.

119. The Respondent [Father] has acted in a manner that 

is inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as 

a parent. While [Father] has occasionally provided 

financial support and necessary items for the care of 

[Nate], [Nate’s paternal grandparents] have assumed the 

primary responsibility for financially supporting and 

meeting the child’s daily needs since June 11, 2018.

Although labeled as findings of fact, the trial court’s determinations that Mother and 

Father were unfit and acting inconsistently with their constitutionally protected 

status are conclusions of law that we review de novo. In re Estate of Sharpe, 258 N.C. 

App. 601, 605, 814 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2018) (“If the lower tribunal labels as a finding 

of fact what is in substance a conclusion of law, we review that ‘finding’ as a 

conclusion de novo.” (citation omitted)).

To support these conclusions, the trial court made the following relevant 

findings of fact:

46. [Father] reported to FCDSS that he continues to be 

engaged in counseling with Mr. George Hage and he 

attends monthly. [Father] would not provide more 

information about what he is learning in sessions and or 

the nature or goals of his therapy. In November 2021, 

[Father] reported to FCDSS Social Work Supervisor Dana 

Burleson that he doesn’t feel therapy is beneficial, stating 

“It provides a little bit of help towards other topics but not 

towards this situation.” FCDSS has not received releases 

by [Father] to request records from Mr. Hage. FCDSS has 

also reached out to his attorney for assistance in obtaining 

signed releases. As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS has not
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

received signed releases or records from Mr. Hage. During 

the hearing on February 21, 2022, [Father] provided 

documentation to FCDSS regarding his work with Mr. 

Hage.

. . . . 

59. FCDSS continues to have the same primary concern 

that inadequate information has been provided as to how 

[Nate] was injured. Without this information, FCDSS 

cannot adequately assess how to correct safety concerns in 

the parents’ care or confirm that the children would now be 

safe if returned to the home and care of [Mother] and 

[Father].

. . . . 

92. The therapy letter provided by [Mother] reflects that 

her goals in therapy were “the importance of her 

professional communication even in a situation where she 

reported feeling lack of control as well as confusion and 

helplessness.” [Mother] acknowledged the purpose of that 

goal was for her to be able to communicate with the Social 

Workers about the case without becoming angry. The 

second therapy goal was “adjustment to the loss of her 

children.” [Mother] acknowledged the purpose of that goal 

was for her to be able to manage her feelings regarding the 

placement of her children in DSS custody.

93. Nothing in the letter from clinician Ann Doherty

reflects that [Mother] was working on therapy goals related 

to exploring the effects of stress around the time of [Nate’s] 

injuries in 2018 or exploring the circumstances 

surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.

94. The letter provided by [Father] reflects that his goals 

in therapy related to “developing a sense of peace and 

acceptance of the separation of his three children from 

him,” and managing symptoms of anxiety and “occurrences 

of depression.”

95. It appears that [Father] did speak with his therapist 

during two sessions on February 22, 2020 and January 15, 

2022 about [Nate’s] injuries. However, it appears the 

information shared was limited to the theory of the fall 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

from the car seat, as presented in 2019. Counselor Hage 

wrote: “[W]e have also dealt with concerns and stressors 

related to his son’s fall. [Father] reports no major incident 

or disorder with [Nate] from his birth up until the incident. 

He certainly regrets the accident happening with the child 

due to not buckling him with the seat belt into his car seat 

. . . I see the accident as something that happened in the 

split seconds of sudden distraction of two children fighting 

in the car, thereby, putting the parents in an insupportable 

position.”

96. Nothing indicates that new information has been 

gained about the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] 

injuries or that the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] 

injuries were ever addressed through the Respondent 

Father’s participation in therapy.

97. From 2019 to the present, neither [Mother] nor [Father] 

have provided a sufficient explanation about how [Nate] 

was injured while in their care, accepted responsibility for 

the injuries, or provided insight into the circumstances 

surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.

98. In the absence of information about how [Nate] 

sustained the injuries in question and with no information 

about the causal and contributing factors surrounding 

those injuries, the [c]ourt is unable to find that the 

circumstances which led to the removal of [Nate], [Kat], 

and [Amy] from the home and care of [Mother] and [Father] 

and the children’s subsequent adjudication have been 

adequately corrected such that the children can safely 

reunify with the parents.

The trial court made these findings after considering testimony from DSS Social 

Work Supervisor Dana Burleson, GAL District Administrator Melissa Bell, Nate’s 

paternal grandfather, Mother, and Father; reports from DSS, the GAL, and Mother; 

and letters from Ann Doherty, Mother’s therapist, and George Hage, Father’s 

therapist. Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 18 -

findings of fact.

These findings of fact, in turn, support the trial court’s conclusions of law that 

Mother “is not a fit and proper person to have the care, custody, and control of the 

minor children” and that Mother “acted in a manner that is inconsistent with her 

constitutionally protected status as a parent.” Furthermore, these findings of fact 

support the trial court’s conclusions of law that Father “is not a fit and proper person 

to have the care, custody, and control of the minor child” and that Father “acted in a 

manner that is inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as a parent.”

2. Best Interests Determination

Mother contends that “[t]he trial court’s decision regarding the children’s best 

interest is not supported by reason and is an abuse of the trial court’s discretionary 

latitude at disposition.” Furthermore, Father contends that the trial court’s 

“determination of Nate’s best interest is not supported by reason and is an abuse of 

the court’s discretion at disposition.”

Here, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact:

85. [Nate] entered FCDSS custody in June 2018 after 

sustaining serious, life threatening injuries due to 

non-accidental means. The cause of the injuries, as 

identified by Dr. Thomas, was blunt force trauma. [Nate’s] 

siblings [Kat] and [Amy] were present in the same home 

and in the care of the same adults as [Nate] when he was 

injured.

. . . .

87. Since the children entered FCDSS custody, [Mother] 

and [Father] have given two explanations for how [Nate’s] 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 19 -

injuries occurred: birth trauma and a fall from a car seat.

88. Based upon the record, the theory of birth trauma was 

previously presented. The [c]ourt did not accept that 

theory, as it directed the parents to present any 

explanations they could offer besides birth trauma.

89. In 2019, [Father] identified a fall from a car seat onto 

the ground as the cause of the injuries [Nate] sustained. In 

2019, FCDSS and the GAL followed up on this reported 

cause with Dr. Thomas, who advised the injuries were 

highly unlikely to have been caused by such a fall and 

identified blunt force trauma as the cause of the injuries.

90. At the hearing today, February 21, 2022, when asked 

how [Nate] sustained the injuries in question, [Mother] did 

not provide any new or additional information. [Mother] 

again referenced birth trauma. [Mother] did not elaborate 

as to why she believed [Nate’s] injuries resulted from birth 

trauma, nor did she present any new evidence to support 

the birth trauma theory. [Mother] stated she was 

unwilling to exclude birth trauma as a cause of these 

injur[i]es until such time as she personally spoke to a 

doctor about her beliefs.

91. At the hearing today, February 21, 2022, when asked 

how [Nate] sustained the injuries in question, [Father] 

denied the injuries were the result of non-accidental 

trauma. He identified an accidental explanation, the fall 

from the car seat as presented in 2019. [Father] did not 

present any new or additional evidence or information to 

support his theory that car seat incident caused the 

injuries.

. . . .

96. Nothing indicates that new information has been 

gained about the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] 

injuries or that the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] 

injuries were ever addressed through the Respondent 

Father’s participation in therapy.

97. From 2019 to the present, neither [Mother] nor [Father] 

have provided a sufficient explanation about how [Nate] 

was injured while in their care, accepted responsibility for 
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 20 -

the injuries, or provided insight into the circumstances 

surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.

98. In the absence of information about how [Nate] 

sustained the injuries in question and with no information 

about the causal and contributing factors surrounding 

those injuries, the [c]ourt is unable to find that the 

circumstances which led to the removal of [Nate], [Kat], 

and [Amy] from the home and care of [Mother] and [Father] 

and the children’s subsequent adjudication have been 

adequately corrected such that the children can safely 

reunify with the parents.

. . . .

123. It is in the best interests of the minor children and will 

promote the children’s health, safety, and welfare to be 

placed into the Guardianship of [Nate’s paternal 

grandparents].

. . . . 

128. The plan of care which is in the best interests of 

[Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] is for [Nate’s paternal 

grandparents] to be appointed as their Guardians, and as 

Guardians for [Nate’s paternal grandparents] to have the 

physical and legal custody of the children, with 

visitation . . . .

These findings are supported by the same competent evidence that supported the 

trial court’s findings regarding reunification efforts. Accordingly, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion by awarding guardianship to Nate’s paternal grandparents.

III. Conclusion

The trial court did not err by ceasing reunification efforts, eliminating 

reunification as a permanent plan, and granting guardianship of Nate, Kat, and Amy 

to Nate’s paternal grandparents. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

Opinion of the Court

- 21 -

Judges DILLON and STADING concur.