IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-95

No. 473A20

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 orders 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 

30(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. § 7B1001(a1)(1) (2019). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(2) and (a2), respondentfather also appeals from the permanency-planning order that eliminated 

reunification with respondent-father from the children’s permanent plan. The 

 

1 We use these pseudonyms to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of reading.
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-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 (DSS), obtained nonsecure custody of six-year-old David

and five-year-old Allison and filed juvenile petitions alleging they were neglected

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 with two persons who are not 

appropriate caregivers. [Her] neighbors called the police

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 mother’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.
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-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 possession 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 

[respondent-father] have provided a safe, appropriate 

home for the juveniles.

15. [The children’s mother] and [respondentfather] have failed to provide proper care and supervision 

for the juveniles. They have exposed the juveniles to 

unsafe, injurious environments.

16. The juveniles require more adequate care and 

supervision than [the children’s mother] or [respondentfather] can provide in their homes.

¶ 3 In a disposition order entered on 6 November 2018, the trial court maintained 

the children in DSS custody 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” felony 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 drug screens as requested by DSS and abstain from all 
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-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 hearing 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 permanencyplanning hearing held on 7 August 2019. 

¶ 5 However, in its permanency-planning order entered on 26 August 2019, the

trial court changed the primary permanent 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 appointment 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 Pitt County 

remained pending. Respondent-father filed a timely notice to preserve his right to 

appeal the order eliminating reunification with him from the children’s permanent 
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-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 terminate 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 existence 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 rights was in both children’s best interests. See N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-1110(a) (2019). Respondent-father filed timely notices 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(a1)(1)–(2), (b). 

¶ 7 Counsel 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 

advised respondent-father of his right to file pro se written arguments on his own 

behalf and provided him 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 reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit 

brief filed 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, 
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-NCSC-95

Opinion of the Court

these issues lack merit.

¶ 9 With regard to the order eliminating reunification from the permanent plan, 

counsel 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 steps

toward reunification; he was incarcerated for a recent act of domestic violence; he had 

submitted to just one drug screen, which was positive for marijuana and cocaine; 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 termination 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. § 7B1111(a)(2) that respondent-father willfully 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 with 
IN RE D.M. & A.H.

2021-NCSC-95

Opinion of the Court

the court’s orders or address his substance abuse issues, as well as his continued 

involvement in criminal conduct and resulting incarceration, evinced a lack of 

reasonable progress since the children 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 trial court made written findings addressing each of the factors

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 

terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests

in that it will facilitate the children’s adoption by their maternal aunt and uncle. We 

further note these 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. 

AFFIRMED.