IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCSC-86

No. 288A21

Filed 15 July 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: J.C.J. and J.R.J.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from orders entered on 22 

October 2020 and 20 May 2021 by Judge Regina R. Parker in District Court, Beaufort 

County. This matter was calendared for oral argument in the Supreme Court on 1 

July 2022, but was determined on the record and briefs without oral argument 

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

J. Edward Yeager, Jr., for petitioner-appellee Beaufort County Department of 

Social Services.

Peter Wood for respondent-appellant father. 

Benjamin J. Kull for respondent-appellant mother.

Matthew D. Wunsche, GAL Appellate Counsel, for North Carolina Guardian 

Ad Litem Program, amicus curiae.

ERVIN, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother Courtney J. and respondent-father Jeremy J. appeal from 

orders entered by the trial court terminating their parental rights in their twin sons 

J.C.J. and J.R.J.1 After careful consideration of the parents’ challenges to the trial 

 

1 J.C.J. and J.R.J. will be referred to throughout the remainder of this opinion as 

“Jaden” and “Jack,” respectively, which are pseudonyms used for ease of reading and to 

protect the identities of the juveniles.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

court’s termination orders in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude 

that the trial court’s termination orders should be affirmed.

¶ 2 Jaden and Jack, who are twins, were born in July 2015 and have five older 

half-siblings.2 On 23 October 2017, the Beaufort County Department of Social 

Services obtained the entry of orders placing the twins in nonsecure custody and filed 

juvenile petitions alleging that they were neglected juveniles. In these petitions, DSS

alleged that the twins resided in an injurious environment and received improper 

care, supervision, and discipline. DSS further alleged that it had received nineteen 

child protective service reports relating to the family since March 2013 based upon 

concerns relating to the adequacy of the supervision and discipline that the older

children had received, the adequacy of the medical care that had been provided to 

these children, parental substance abuse, and the children’s exposure to sexual 

conduct. On 9 September 2017, DSS alleged that it had received a child protective 

services report describing “child on child sexual abuse occurring in the home” 

involving two of the twins’ half-siblings, with four of the twins’ half-siblings having 

previously been found to be neglected based primarily upon respondent-mother’s 

failure to take advantage of the remedial services that she had been offered. Finally, 

DSS alleged that the twins’ speech development was delayed and that, even though 

 

2 In view of the fact that the parental rights of the twins’ half-siblings were not at 

issue in the termination of parental rights proceeding at issue in this case, we will refrain 

from discussing the status of the twins’ half-siblings in any detail in this opinion.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

a social worker had recommended that they receive speech therapy, respondentmother had refused to ensure that they received such therapy on the grounds that 

she did not need assistance in “keeping up with the children’s appointments and/or 

raising her children.”

¶ 3 After a hearing held on 11 April 2018, Judge Darrell B. Cayton, Jr., entered an 

order on 12 April 2018 determining that the twins were neglected juveniles. In light 

of this determination, Judge Cayton ordered respondent-mother to continue to 

comply with the terms of an Out of Home Family Services Agreement; continue to 

attend the Families Understanding Nurturing Program; continue to receive

therapeutic treatment at Pamlico Counseling; participate in family therapy when 

recommended by her own and the twins’ therapists; attend all available visits with 

the children; and acquire a valid driver’s license and transportation. Similarly, the 

trial court ordered respondent-father to continue to comply with the terms of his own 

family services agreement; continue to attend the Families Understanding Nurturing 

Program; join in couple’s therapy with respondent-mother; participate in family 

therapy with the twins when their therapist deemed it appropriate for him to do so; 

visit with the children; and acquire a valid driver’s license and transportation. The 

parents were granted at least one hour of supervised visitation with the children each 

week.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

¶ 4 On 5 October 2018, respondent-mother filed a motion in which she requested 

that a trial home placement be authorized. After conducting a permanency planning 

hearing on 21 November 2018, Judge Cayton entered an order finding that 

respondent-mother had completed the Families Understanding Nurturing Program, 

participated in couple’s counseling, and taken advantage of all available 

opportunities to visit with the children. In addition, Judge Cayton found that 

respondent-mother had continued to participate in therapeutic treatment at Pamlico 

Counseling until July 2018 and that, on 14 November 2018, she had resumed 

participating in therapy with Dream Provider Care Services. On the other hand, 

Judge Cayton found that respondent-mother remained unemployed and did not wish

to seek or obtain employment. Similarly, Judge Cayton found that respondent-father

had completed the Families Understanding Nurturing Program, attended couple’s 

counseling, and taken advantage of all available opportunities to visit with the 

children. Finally, Judge Cayton found that neither parent had obtained a valid 

driver’s license. Based upon these and other findings, Judge Cayton determined that

the parents had made sufficient progress to warrant a trial home placement and 

established a primary permanent plan of reunification, with a concurrent plan of 

adoption.

¶ 5 Following a permanency planning hearing held on 20 March 2019, the trial 

court entered an order on 21 March 2019 in which it found that the twins remained 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

in a trial home placement with the parents and that, while “[t]he present risk of harm 

to the children in the [parents’] home is low,” “the situation is rickety, perhaps prone 

to sudden collapse.” On 2 May 2019, the trial home placement ended.

¶ 6 On 6 April 2020, DSS filed a motion alleging that the parents’ parental rights 

in the twins were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B1111(a)(1); willfully leaving the twins in a placement outside the home for more than

twelve months without making reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions 

that had led to their removal from the family home, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2);

willfully failing to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the care that the twins had 

received following their removal from the family home, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3); and 

dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), and that termination of the parents’ parental 

rights would be in the twins’ best interests. In its termination motion, DSS alleged 

that the trial home placement had ended in May 2019 after the parents had failed to 

deliver the twins to daycare in a timely manner, preventing the twins from receiving 

remedial services, such as speech and occupational therapy, and causing the twins’

developmental progress to end or even regress. In addition, DSS alleged that the 

twins had been removed from the trial home placement because the parents had

failed to provide them with proper supervision, with Jack having sustained burns

after touching a “burn barrel” and with the parents having failed to report the injury 

to DSS or to seek medical treatment for this injury.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

¶ 7 After hearings held on 30 September and 2 October 2020, the trial court 

entered an adjudication order on 22 October 2020 in which it concluded that all four

of the grounds for termination alleged in the termination motion existed. After a 

hearing held on 3 May 2021, the trial court entered a dispositional order on 20 May 

2021 determining that it was in the twins’ best interests for the parents’ parental 

rights to be terminated and ordering that their parental rights in the twins be 

terminated. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2021). The parents noted appeals to this 

Court from the trial court’s termination orders.

I. Standard of Review

¶ 8 “We review a trial court’s adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 ‘to determine 

whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the 

findings support the conclusions of law.’ ” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019) 

(quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). Appellate review of the trial 

court’s adjudicatory findings of fact is limited to “those findings necessary to support 

the trial court’s determination that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s 

parental rights.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 (2019). “A trial court’s finding of 

fact that is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is deemed conclusive 

even if the record contains evidence that would support a contrary finding.” In re 

B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 379 (2019). “Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are 

deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

372 N.C. at 407. “The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on 

appeal.” In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19 (2019).

¶ 9 “If [the trial court] determines that one or more grounds listed in section 7B1111 are present, the court proceeds to the dispositional stage, at which the court 

must consider whether it is in the best interests of the juvenile to terminate parental 

rights.” In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 842 (2016) (first citing In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 

247 (1997); and then citing N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110 (2015)). We review the trial court’s 

dispositional findings to determine whether they are supported by sufficient 

evidence, In re K.N.L.P., 380 N.C. 756, 2022-NCSC-39 ¶ 11, with unchallenged 

dispositional findings of fact being deemed binding for purposes of appellate review. 

In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 437 (2019). A trial court’s dispositional determination “is 

reviewed solely for abuse of discretion,” In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3, 6 (2019) (citing In 

re D.L.W., 368 N.C. at 842), with an abuse of discretion having occurred “where the 

court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not 

have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re T.L.H., 368 N.C. 101, 107 (2015) 

(quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285 (1988)). We will now examine the validity 

of the parents’ challenges to the trial court’s termination orders utilizing the 

applicable standard of review.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

II. Analysis

A. Adjudication

¶ 10 As an initial matter, the parents argue that the trial court erred by 

determining that their parental rights in the twins were subject to termination. A

single ground for termination is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to 

terminate a parent’s parental rights in a child. E.g., In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 404 

(1982). We will begin our analysis by determining whether the trial court erred by 

concluding that the parents’ parental rights in the twins were subject to termination

based upon a failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the care that the twins 

received after they were placed outside the family home pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B1111(a)(3).

¶ 11 A trial court is authorized to terminate a parent’s parental rights in a child

pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) in the event that

[t]he juvenile has been placed in the custody of a county 

department of social services, a licensed child-placing 

agency, a child-caring institution, or a foster home, and the 

parent has for a continuous period of six months 

immediately preceding the filing of the petition or motion 

willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of 

care for the juvenile although physically and financially 

able to do so.

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (2021). As we have previously explained,

[t]he cost of care refers to the amount it costs the 

Department of Social Services to care for the child, namely, 

foster care. A parent is required to pay that portion of the 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

cost of foster care for the child that is fair, just and 

equitable based upon the parent’s ability or means to pay.

In re J.M., 373 N.C. 352, 357 (2020) (cleaned up).

¶ 12 In support of its determination that the parents’ parental rights in the twins 

were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3), the trial court 

made the following findings of fact:

243. Mother and Father are [able-bodied] adults 

capable of working.

244. Throughout the pendency of this case, neither 

parent has contributed to the cost of these children’s care. 

But, they have provided the juveniles with gifts.

245. Throughout the pendency of the case, Father 

has been consistently employed at Rose Acre Egg Farm; 

and, he testified that there is surplus money remaining 

after expenses are paid.

246. Father is able to adjust his income so that he 

can work more when necessary to make additional income. 

Father indicated that he is willing to do that to support 

these juveniles.

247. While Mother is physically able to work, she 

has chosen not to do so.

In addition, the trial court found that, on 23 April 2020, the Beaufort County Child 

Support Agency, acting on behalf of North Carolina Foster Care, had filed a complaint 

against the parents seeking an award of child support, that respondent-mother had 

been ordered to pay $50 per month in child support and found to owe an arrearage of

$1,650 on 14 August 2020, and that respondent-father had been ordered to pay $473 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

per month in child support and found to owe an arrearage of $17,028 on 25 September 

2020. The trial court further found that, even though the parents had the ability to 

pay child support in the required amounts, they “did not pay child support to offset 

the juveniles’ cost of care” “during the period of time prior to the entry of those child

support orders.” In addition, the trial court found that, while the parents had been

aware as early as 2018 that a referral had been made to the Beaufort County Child 

Support Agency, neither of them had “attempted to look into the referral” or ascertain

the amount of child support that they needed to pay. As a result, the trial court

determined that the parents’ failure to pay child support was “willful as both parents 

were aware they had the obligation to support their children, knew that [DSS] had 

made a referral to the Beaufort County Child Support Agency, and decided to take no 

step to address the issue until they were sued for failure to pay child support.”

¶ 13 According to respondent-mother, the trial court erred in Finding of Fact No. 

244 by determining that the parents had contributed nothing toward the cost of the 

care that the twins had received. In support of this contention, respondent-mother 

directs our attention to evidence tending to show that the parents had provided gifts, 

clothing, and diapers for the twins, arguing that these “in-kind contributions were 

[their] only option” because it was “impossible to pay the government money.” We do 

not find this contention to be persuasive.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

¶ 14 In In re D.C., 378 N.C. 556, 2021-NCSC-104, the trial court made unchallenged 

findings that the parents were physically able to work, had started a lawn care 

business during the relevant six-month period, and had stated that their lawn care 

business earned sufficient income to permit them to support themselves and their 

children. Id. ¶ 15. Although the trial court found that the parents had provided to 

the child who was the subject of the termination proceeding “some food and gifts at 

visitation” and that they had given the juvenile “some small amount of spending 

money,” id., the trial court also found that the parents did not pay any child support 

or give DSS or the foster parents any money for use in defraying the cost of the care 

that the child had received. Id. In affirming the trial court’s determination that the 

parents’ parental rights in the child was subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-1111(a)(3), this Court stated that “[t]he trial court’s unchallenged findings of 

fact demonstrate[d] that respondents had the ability to pay a reasonable portion of 

[the juvenile]’s cost of care but failed to pay any amount to DSS or the foster parents 

toward cost of care.” Id. ¶ 20 (emphasis added).

¶ 15 As was the case in In re D.C., the record contains evidence tending to show that

respondent-mother provided gifts, clothing, and diapers for the twins. However, as

was also the case in In re D.C., the sporadic provision of gifts for the benefit of the 

twins by respondent-mother does not preclude a determination that respondentmother had failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the care that the twins
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

had received following their removal from the family home given that respondentmother made no payment to DSS or the foster parents during the pendency of the 

case, including the determinative six-month period, and given that the “cost of care” 

for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) relates to the financial costs that DSS was

required to assume while the twins were in its custody. In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 

at 113. In view of the fact that the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact show 

that, even though respondent-mother had the physical ability to work, she elected not 

do so and the fact that the undisputed record evidence shows that respondent-mother 

failed to make any monetary payments to DSS or the foster parents for the purpose 

of assisting in the provision of care for the twins, we hold that respondent-mother’s 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidentiary support for Finding of Fact No. 244 

lacks merit.

¶ 16 Secondly, respondent-mother argues that her failure to pay a reasonable 

portion of the cost of the care that the twins had received while in DSS custody was 

not willful because it is “impossible for a parent to pay the government child support”

in the absence of a child support order and because DSS “did not formally ask [the 

parents] for child support until a month after it had already moved to terminate for 

nonpayment.” We do not find this argument to be persuasive.

¶ 17 In In re S.E., 373 N.C. 360 (2020), this Court recognized that “[t]he absence of 

a court order, notice, or knowledge of a requirement to pay support is not a defense 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

to a parent’s obligation to pay reasonable costs, because parents have an inherent 

duty to support their children.” Id. at 366. In view of the fact that respondent-mother 

had an inherent duty to support the twins, she is not now entitled to argue that her 

failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care that her children received while 

they were outside her home was not willful based upon the absence of an order 

requiring her to do so. In addition, the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact 

demonstrate that, even though respondent-mother had been aware as early as 2018 

that a referral had been made to the child support enforcement agency relating to her 

support obligation, she had failed to investigate the referral or to attempt to ascertain

the amount of child support that she needed to pay. As a result, the trial court’s 

findings indicate that respondent-mother knew that she had failed to pay anything

towards the cost of the care that her children had received despite DSS’ contention 

that she needed to do so. See id. at 366–67 (finding that the respondent-mother “was 

on notice of her failure to pay something towards the cost of care for her children” in 

light of the fact that the trial court had repeatedly found in each of the permanency 

planning orders that had been entered in that case that neither of the parents was

paying child support).

¶ 18 Finally, respondent-mother argues that allowing the termination of her 

parental rights in the twins pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) in this case 

constitutes an “unconscionable and unconstitutional termination by ambush.” More 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

specifically, respondent-mother contends that terminating a parent’s parental rights

in a child for “failing to do the impossible (pay the government money) . . . without 

any formal notice of an obligation to do so” violates the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina

Constitution. Respondent-mother notes that, while N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(4)

precludes the termination of a parent’s parental rights in a private termination action 

in the absence of formal notice that a payment obligation existed, “parents in child 

welfare cases may have their rights terminated under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) 

absent such notice.” For that reason, respondent-mother urges us to disavow our 

decision in In re S.E. in light of the constitutionally impermissible “disparate 

treatment” afforded to parents involved in private termination proceedings and 

parents involved in child welfare cases. However, since respondent-mother did not 

advance the constitutional argument upon which she now relies before the trial court, 

we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal. See State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 

73, 87 (2002) (reiterating that “[c]onstitutional issues not raised and passed upon at 

trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal”).

¶ 19 In his sole challenge to the trial court’s determination that his parental rights 

in the twins were subject to termination on the basis of a failure to pay a reasonable 

portion of the cost of the care that the twins had received after their removal from 

the family home pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3), respondent-father contends 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

that the trial court had erred by failing to make specific findings concerning the sixmonth determinative period leading up to the filing of the termination motion, 

arguing in reliance upon In re Faircloth, 161 N.C. App. 523, 526 (2003), that a trial

court’s failure to make findings specifically addressing the relevant six-month period 

constitutes prejudicial error. In In re Faircloth, the record reflected that, despite 

finding that the respondent-mother had been employed “at various times since 1999,”

the trial court’s findings did not specifically address whether she had been employed 

from 3 February 2000 to 3 August 2000, which constituted the determinative sixmonth period for purposes of that case, “or whether she was otherwise financially 

able to pay.” Id. at 526. In overturning the trial court’s termination order, the Court 

of Appeals concluded that, “[a]bsent such findings or evidence in the record that 

respondent-mother could pay some amount greater than zero towards the cost of care 

for children during that period of time,” the record did not suffice to support the 

termination of the respondent-mother’s parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B1111(a)(3). Id. (emphasis added).

¶ 20 In this case, however, the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact indicate 

that, “[t]hroughout the pendency of the case, [respondent-father] has been 

consistently employed at Rose Acre Egg Farm.” In other words, unlike the situation 

at issue in In re Faircloth, the undisputed record evidence in this case reflects that

respondent-father was continuously employed from the beginning of the case until 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

the time of the termination hearing, an interval that necessarily included the 

determinative six-month period. In addition, the trial court’s unchallenged findings

of fact establish that, even though respondent-father had the ability to make 

payments to offset a portion of the cost of the care that the children had received after 

their removal from the family home, he had failed to pay any amount towards their 

care. As a result, the trial court’s findings of fact provide ample support for its 

conclusion that respondent-father’s parental rights in the twins were subject to 

termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3). In light of our decision that the 

trial court did not err by concluding that both parents’ parental rights in the twins 

were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3), we need not 

address their challenges to the trial court’s determination that their parental rights 

in the twins were also subject to termination for neglect, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1); 

failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to 

the twins’ removal from the family home, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2); and dependency, 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6). E.g. In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at 395.

B. Disposition

¶ 21 The parents both argue that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding 

that the twins’ best interests would be served by the termination of their parental 

rights in light of the fact that the twins had a strong bond with the parents, that the 

parents had not missed any opportunity to visit with the children during the forty-
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

two month history of this case, and that “the current plan of shared parenting and 

visitation was “working for everyone.” As part of this process, the parents challenge 

some of the trial court’s dispositional findings of fact as lacking sufficient evidentiary 

support3 and assert that the trial court should have utilized a “least restrictive 

disposition” standard in making its dispositional decision.

¶ 22 In determining whether the termination of a parents’ parental rights is in a

child’s best interests,

[t]he court may consider any evidence, including hearsay 

evidence as defined in N.C.G.S. [§] 8C-1, Rule 801, that the 

court finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to 

determine the best interests of the juvenile. In each case, 

the court shall consider the following criteria and make 

written findings regarding the following that are relevant:

(1) The age of the juvenile.

(2) The likelihood of adoption of the juvenile.

(3) Whether the termination of parental rights will aid 

in the accomplishment of the permanent plan for the 

juvenile.

(4) The bond between the juvenile and the parent.

 

3 Among the dispositional findings that the parents challenge as lacking in sufficient 

evidentiary support is Finding of Fact No. 82, which states that “[i]t is in the [twins’] best 

interests to remain placed in the home of [their foster parents], as the [twins] have bonded 

to them.” Although the trial court labeled this determination as a finding of fact, it is, in 

reality, a conclusion of law and will be treated as such in our analysis. See In re J.S., 374 

N.C. 811, 818 (2020) (stating that “[w]e are obliged to apply the appropriate standard of 

review to a finding of fact or conclusion of law, regardless of the label which it is given by the 

trial court.”).
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

(5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile 

and the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, 

custodian, or other permanent placement.

(6) Any relevant consideration.

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2021). 

¶ 23 As an initial matter, the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidentiary 

support for dispositional Finding of Fact No. 40 which states that, in “the [foster 

parents’ home], the [twins] have a routine, with established services,” and that “[t]o 

move the [twins] now would result in a complete disruption of their lives, which would 

be needlessly detrimental.” A DSS supervisor testified at the termination hearing

that, even though Jack had experienced developmental delays, he had made “a lot of 

progress” while in the foster parents’ care and that the twins’ “well[-]being, their 

education, down to fun things,” had changed dramatically during that time.

According to the DSS supervisor, the foster parents took the twins on trips, taught 

them to swim and ride a bicycle, potty-trained them, and addressed their medical 

needs by having one of the twin’s tongue-tie clipped and by having tubes placed in 

both twins’ ears. On the other hand, the DSS supervisor testified that, prior to the 

time that DSS had become involved in their lives, the twins did not receive any

services even though Jack “require[d] a lot of time and a lot of appointments[] and 

consistency” in light of the fact that being “out of routine . . . really throws him off.”

Among other things, the DSS supervisor testified that Jack needed play therapy, 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

medication appointments, occupational therapy, and speech therapy and that, while 

living with the foster parents, Jack did not miss any of his appointments and had 

received his medication on a daily basis. In the DSS supervisor’s opinion, the foster 

parents had put “a lot of effort in teaching these kids and loving these kids and 

nurturing these kids” and that the removal of the twins from the foster parents’ home

“would uproot all of their services that they have been getting for years” and be 

“absolutely detrimental” to the progress that the twins had made while in the foster 

parents’ care. Based upon this testimony, we hold that dispositional Finding of Fact 

No. 40 has ample evidentiary support.

¶ 24 In addition, the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidentiary support for 

dispositional Finding of Fact No. 47, which states that their “ease of leaving the 

[parents] indicates that the [twins] do not have a strong bond with the” parents and 

that the twins “have been out of their home for so long that the [twins] view the [foster 

parents] as their caretakers.” Arguing in reliance upon respondent-mother’s 

testimony that she has an “[a]mazing” bond with the twins, the maternal greatgrandfather’s testimony that he had “never seen [the bond between respondents and 

the twins] be weak,” and the maternal great-grandmother’s testimony that 

respondents “love [the twins]. They just love them. They’re their lives,” the parents 

assert that “[a]ll the evidence pointed to a strong bond.” In addition, the parents note 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

that they never missed an opportunity to visit with the twins, “except for one”

instance involving respondent-mother, over a period of forty-two months.

¶ 25 According to well-established North Carolina law, a trial court’s findings of fact 

are binding for purposes of appellate review “where there is some evidence to support 

those findings, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary.” In 

re Montgomery, 311 N.C. at 110–11. Although the evidence upon which the parents’ 

rely in challenging to the sufficiency of the record to support dispositional Finding of 

Fact No. 47 relies certainly appears in the record, a DSS supervisor described the 

twins’ bond with respondents as “attenuated.” After acknowledging the parents’ 

consistency in visiting with the twins, the DSS supervisor testified that the twins are 

not “put off” or crying at the beginning or end of their visits with the parents and that 

the twins were “fine” about returning to their foster mother at the conclusion of these

visits. In addition, the DSS supervisor testified that, since the foster parents had 

“been [the twins’] caretakers for so long” and since the foster parents’ other children 

referred to them as “mommy” and “daddy,” the twins had been “picking up on 

mommy, daddy roles.” In light of this evidence, we hold that the trial court 

reasonably inferred that the twins lacked a strong bond with the parents and that 

they viewed their foster parents as their caretakers, see In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. at 843

(stating that it is the trial judge’s duty to consider all the evidence, to pass upon the 

credibility of the witnesses, and to determine the reasonable inferences to be drawn 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

from the evidence). As a result, dispositional Finding of Fact No. 47 has sufficient 

record support.

¶ 26 Thirdly, the parents argue that the trial court abused its discretion by

terminating their parental rights without utilizing a “least restrictive disposition” 

test in order to make this determination. As part of this process, the parents assert

that the trial court should have ascertained whether “continued contact with the birth 

family” would have benefitted the twins and that, since the parents and the foster 

parents “worked together and shared parenting,” the trial court should not have 

“[e]nd[ed] all contact” between the twins and the parents. The parents urge us to

“follow the lead of a number of other jurisdictions” by adopting a dispositional 

standard “that encourages contact between parents and children even when the 

parents cannot regain custody,” citing Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 

602, 609–10 (2004) (per curiam) (holding that a parent’s rights may be terminated 

pursuant to a specific statutory provision “only if the state proves both a prior 

involuntary termination of rights to a sibling and a substantial risk of significant 

harm to the current child” and that “the state must prove that the termination of 

parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm”); Iowa 

Code § 232.99(4) (2020) (providing that, “[w]hen the dispositional hearing is 

concluded the court shall make the least restrictive disposition appropriate 

considering all the circumstances of the case”); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-329(d) (West 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

2021) (providing that, “[i]n initially considering the disposition alternatives and at 

any subsequent hearing, the court shall give preference to the least restrictive 

disposition consistent with the best interests and welfare of the juvenile and the 

public”); Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(6) (West 2021) (providing that, “[b]efore an 

adjudication of unfitness, government action in relation to a parent and a parent’s 

child may not exceed the least restrictive means or alternatives available to 

accomplish a compelling state interest”); S.D. Codified Laws § 26-8A-27 (2021) 

(providing that, “[o]n completion of a final dispositional hearing regarding a child 

adjudicated to be abused or neglected, the court may enter a final decree of disposition 

terminating all parental rights of one or both parents of the child if the court finds, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that the least restrictive alternative available 

commensurate with the best interests of the child with due regard for the rights of 

the parents, the public and the state so requires”); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-D:17

(2021) (providing that, “[i]f the court finds the child is in need of services, it shall 

order the least restrictive and most appropriate disposition considering the facts in 

the case, the investigation report, and the dispositional recommendations of the 

parties and counsel”); and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-431(j)(iii)(A) (West 2021) (providing 

that, “[a]t the permanency hearing, the department of family services shall present 

to the court[, i]f the child is placed in a qualified residential program[,] [i]nformation 

to show that ongoing assessment of the child’s strengths and needs continues to 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

support the determination that placement in a qualified residential treatment 

program provides the most effective and appropriate level of care for the child in the 

least restrictive environment consistent with the short-term and long-term goals of 

the child and the child’s permanency plan”).

¶ 27 As an initial matter, we note that the Iowa, Arkansas, and New Hampshire

statutes upon which the parents rely relate to the dispositional determination that 

must be made in the aftermath of an adjudication that a child is abused, neglected,

dependent, or in need of services. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

303(16), (37); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-D:2(II). In addition, the Wyoming statute

upon which the parents rely addresses the status of juveniles placed in “qualified 

residential treatment program[s].” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-431(j)(iii)(A). As a result, 

none of these statutory provisions have any direct bearing upon the proper resolution 

of the issue that is before us in this case.

¶ 28 In addition, this Court has previously observed that 

[t]he purpose of termination of parental rights 

proceedings is to address circumstances where parental 

care fails to “promote the healthy and orderly physical and 

emotional well-being of the juvenile,” while also 

recognizing “the necessity for any juvenile to have a 

permanent plan of care at the earliest possible age.” 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1100. In North Carolina, the best interests 

of the child are the paramount consideration in 

termination of parental rights cases. See In re 

Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 

(1984). Thus, when there is a conflict between the interests 

of the child and the parents, courts should consider actions 
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

that are within the child’s best interests over those of the 

parents. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1100(3).

In re F.S.T.Y., 374 N.C. 532, 540 (2020). In light of these considerations, we have

rejected arguments that the trial court commits error at 

the dispositional stage of a termination of parental rights 

proceeding by failing to explicitly consider nontermination-related dispositional alternatives, such as 

awarding custody of or guardianship over the child to the 

foster family, by reiterating that “the paramount 

consideration must always be the best interests of the 

child.”

In re N.K., 375 N.C. 805, 820 (2020) (quoting In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787, 795 (2020)). 

As a result, we hold that there is no basis for the use of a “least restrictive disposition” 

test in this Court’s termination of parental rights jurisprudence.

¶ 29 A careful examination of the record reflects that the trial court considered the 

factors enunciated in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) in making its dispositional decision. The 

trial court found that the twins were five years old at that time; that there was a high 

likelihood that they would be adopted by their foster parents, who had “expressed a 

willingness to adopt” the twins; and that, since the twins’ concurrent permanent plan 

was adoption, termination of the parents’ parental rights would “work to further the 

achievement of that plan.” The trial court further found that, given the twins’ “ease 

of leaving” the parents at the conclusion of parental visits, the twins did not have a 

strong bond with the parents and that the twins had been out of the parents’ home 

for such a long period of time that they viewed the foster parents as their caretakers.
IN RE J.C.J. AND J.R.J.

2022-NCSC-86

Opinion of the Court

On the other hand, the trial court found that the twins’ relationship with their foster 

parents was “of a high quality, evidencing a strong bond,” and that Jaden was “very 

close” to his foster father, with “the two of them [having constructed] things together, 

such as a Lego table that was built for the boys.” Finally, the trial court found that 

the foster parents had ensured that the twins’ needs were met and that the twins had 

been in DSS custody since 23 October 2017, amounting to a period of approximately 

forty-two months, at the time of the termination hearing. Based upon these and other 

findings of fact, the trial court concluded that “it is in the juveniles’ best interest for 

the parental rights of [the parents] to be terminated. In view of the fact that the trial 

court’s dispositional orders reflect proper consideration of the required statutory 

criteria, we are unable to conclude that the trial court’s determination that 

termination of the parents’ parental rights would be in the twins’ best interests was 

manifestly unsupported by reason. As a result, the trial court did not err in 

concluding that the parents’ parental rights in the twins were subject to termination 

based upon the parents’ failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the care that 

the twins had received following their removal from the family home pursuant to 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(3) and that the termination of the parents’ parental rights 

would be in the twins’ best interests. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s termination 

orders.

AFFIRMED.