IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2021

- NCSC

- 95 No. 47 3 A20 Filed 27 August 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: D.M. & A.H.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1001(a1)(1)

– (2) , (a2) from order s entered on 26 August 2019 and 5 August 2020 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare County. This matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 21 June
2021 but determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule
3 0(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure

. No brief for petitioner

- appellee Dare County Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Social Services

. No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem. Garron T

. Michael for respondent

- appellant father

. EARLS, Justice. ¶ 1 Respondent

- father appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights in the minor children “David” and “Allison.” 1 See N.C.G.S. § 7B

1001(a1) (1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1001(a1)(2) and (a2), resp ondent

father also appeals from the permanency

- planning order that eliminated reunification with respondent

- father from the children’s permanent plan. The

1 We use these p seudonym s to protect the juveniles’ identit ies and for ease of reading.I N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court

children’s mother has relinquished her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal

. We affirm. ¶ 2 On 1 May 2018 , the Dare County Department of Health and Human Services , Division of Social Services (D S S ) , obtained nonsecure custody of six

- year - old David and five

- year - old Allison and filed juvenile petition s alleging they were neglect ed juveniles

. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 9 August 2018 adjudicating the children as neglected juveniles based on respondents’ stipulation to the following facts:
9. On April 30, 2018, [ the children’s mother] left

the juveniles at her home wi th two persons who are not appropriate caregivers. [Her] neighbors called the polic e because the juveniles were yelling out of the upstairs windows that they were hungry and afraid to go downstairs. 10. Police performed a welfare check at [ the children’s m other’s] home on April 30 , 2018 after receiving calls from her neighbors. . . . Once the juveniles were secured, police searched [the] home. They found two small bags with a white powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the juveniles’ clothes and toy boxes. They found drug paraphernalia, including two burned pipes and two burned spoons. They also found about six grams of a powdery substance they believed to be cocaine in the freezer. 11. [ The children’s mother] failed to properly feed the juveniles . The home she provided for the juveniles was filthy, unkempt, and unsafe. There was moldy food in the kitchen, garbage throughout the home, and no suitable beds for the juveniles to sleep on.I N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court

12. When [ the children’s mother] arrived home, she told police that she had been on a date and had paid one of the individuals in the home $20.00 to watch the kids. She told police she had been gone for two hours and did not know who had been in her home. [She] was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and p ossession of drug paraphernalia. 13. [Respondent

- father] had limited contact with the juveniles before the Juvenile Petition was filed. He has willingly left the juveniles in the care of [ the children’s mother]. 14. Neither [ the children’s mother] nor [res pondent

- father] have provided a safe, appropriate home for the juveniles. 15. [ The children’s mother] and [respondent

father] have failed to provide proper care and supervision for the juveniles. They have exposed the juveniles to unsafe, injurious environ ments. 16. The juveniles require more adequate care and supervision than [ the children’s mother] or [respondent

father] can provide in their homes. ¶ 3 In a disposition order entered on 6 November 2018, the trial court maintained the children in DSS custo dy and awarded respondent

- father one hour per week of supervised visitation. The court found respondent

- father had visited the children on two occasions since their placement in nonsecure custody but was arrested on 20 June 2018 and was facing “serious” fe lony drug and weapons charges in Pitt County , which could result in “a substantial prison sentence.” The court ordered respondent

- father to enter into a visitation plan with DSS “to establish a regular, consistent visitation schedule”; submit to random dru g screens as requested by DSS and abstain from allI N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court
intoxicating substances; obtain a substance abuse assessment and comply with all treatment recommendations; and keep DSS apprised of his whereabouts and address. ¶ 4 At the initial permanency

- planning he aring held on 6 February 2019, the trial court established a primary permanent plan for the children of reunification with the children’s mother or respondent

- father with a secondary plan of guardianship with a relative. The court maintained these primary and secondary plans at the next
permanency - planning hearing held on 8 May 2019 and up to the permanency

planning hearing held on 7 August 2019. ¶ 5 However, i n its permanency - planning order entered on 26 August 2019, the trial court changed the primary p ermanent plan to adoption, established a secondary plan of reunification with the children’s mother, and relieved DSS of further reunification efforts with respondent

- father. The court found that respondent

- father had yet to enter into a case plan or visitation plan with DSS; he had submitted to a drug screen after a court appearance on 6 February 2019 and tested positive for marijuana and cocaine; he had scheduled an appointme nt for substance abuse treatment at PORT New Horizons but failed to attend the appointment; and he had been incarcerated since May 2019 for assaulting “his young paramour.” The court also noted that respondent

- father’s felony drug and weapons charges in Pi tt County remained pending. Respondent

- father filed a timely notice to preserv e his right to appeal the orde r eliminatin g reunification with him from the children’s permanentI N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court
plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1001(a1)(2)(a), ( b ) (2019). ¶ 6 DSS filed a motion to t erminate respondent

- father’s parental rights on 11 December 2019. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 3 June and 1 July 2020 and entered its “Termination of Parental Rights Order” on 5 August 2020. In its order, the court adjudicated the existe nce of grounds to terminate respondent

- father’s parental rights for neglect, lack of reasonable progress, and dependency. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1111(a)(1)

– (2), (6) (2019)

. The trial court further concluded that termination of respondent

- father’s parental right s was in both children’s best interests. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1110 (a) (2019). Respondent

- fath er filed timely notice s of appeal from the termination order and from the order eliminating reunification with him from the permanent plan. See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1001(a 1)(1)

– ( 2 ), (b). ¶ 7 Counsel for r espondent

- father has filed a no

- merit brief on h is client’s behalf under Rule 3.1(e) of t he North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. C ounsel advise d respondent

- father of his right to file pro se written arguments on h is own behalf and provide d h im with the documents necessary to do so. See N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e). Respondent

- father has not submitted written arguments to this Court. ¶ 8 This Court independently review s issues identified by counsel in a no

- merit brief fi led pursuant to Appellate Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). Respondent

- father’s counsel has identified issues that could arguably support an appeal in this case while also explaining why, based on a careful review of the record,I N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court

these is sues lack merit. ¶ 9 With regard to the order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan,

c ounsel for respondent

- father acknowledges that competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and that the findings support the court’s conclusion that further efforts to reunify David and Allison with respondent

- father “would clearly be unsuccessful or inconsistent with the juveniles’ need for a permanent pla[cement] within a reasonable period of time.” See N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 906.2(b) (2019). At the time of the permanency - planning hearing respondent

- father had made no meaningful st eps toward reunification; he was incarcerated for a recent act of domestic violence ; h e had submitted to just one drug screen, which was positive for marijuana and co caine; and he had failed to attend a scheduled appointment to begin substance abuse treatment

. The trial court’s ceasing of reunification efforts with respondent

- father thus comports with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 906.2(b). ¶ 10 Turning to the ter mination order, counsel for respondent

- father concedes that “the existence of a single ground for termination suffices to support the termination of a parent’s parental rights in a child,” In re J.S. , 2021

- NCSC

- 28, ¶ 24, and that the evidence and the trial court’s findings support a conclusion under N.C.G.S. § 7B

1111(a)(2) that respondent

- father willful ly left the children in a placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions leading to their removal . Respondent

- father’s failure to comply withI N RE D.M. & A.H.
20 21

- NCSC

- 95 Opinion of the Court

the court’s orders or a ddress his substance abuse issues, as wel l as his continued involvement in criminal conduct and resulting incarceration, evinced a lack of reasonable pr ogress since the childr en were removed from the children’s mother’s custody in May 2018

. See In re Z.K. , 375 N.C. 370, 373 (2020)

. The trial court did not err in adjudicating the existence of grounds for termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1111(a)(2). ¶ 11 Finally, the tri al court made written findings addressing each of the factor s relevant to disposition under N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1110(a) . As counsel for respondent

- father admits, the findings provide a rational basis for the trial court’s assessment that terminatin g respondent

- f ather’s parental rights wa s in the children’s best interests in that it will facilitate the children’s adoption by their maternal aunt and uncle. We further note the se findings are supported by competent evidence presented at the termination hearing. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion during the dispositional stage of the proceeding by choosing to terminate respondent

- father’s parental rights

. In re Z.K. , 375 N.C. at 373, 847 S.E.2d at 749. ¶ 12 Having considered the entire record and the issues identified in the no

- merit brief, we affirm the trial court’s order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan and the trial court’s order terminating respondent

- father’s parental rights. AFFIRM ED

.