IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 208A20 Filed 11 December 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: A.P.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 10 01(a1)(1) from an order entered on 10 February 2020 by Judge Meredith A. Shuford in District Court, Lincoln County. This matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 23 November 2020 but determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure
. J. Fielding Yelverton for appellee Lincoln County Department of Social Services
. Stacie C. Knight for appellee Guardian ad Litem
. Leslie Rawls for respondent

- appellant father and David A. Perez for respondent

- appellant mother.
NEWBY , Justice. Respondent

- mother and respondent

- father appeal from the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights in the minor child “Amy.” 1 Counsel for respondents have jointly filed a no

- merit brief under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because we conclude the issues identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless, we affirm.

1 We use this pseudonym to protect the juvenile’s identity and for ease of reading.I N RE A.P. Opinion of the Court

- 2

- Amy was born in October 2018 in Lincoln County, North Carolina
. On the date of Amy’s birth, the Lincoln County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report that respondent

- mother tested positive for amphetamines upon her admission to the hospital, “ had been using heroin, Suboxone, and other drugs ,” and would be involuntarily comm itted, leaving newborn Amy without a caretaker who could

co nsent to medical treatment. Respondent

- father, who claimed to be Amy’s biological father, was reportedly “at the hospital ‘raising cane’ ” and had to be escorted from the premises. A DSS social wo rker responded to the hospital. Medical staff advised her that respondent

- mothe r was in the critical care unit, that she “ would be sedated for three to ten days due to withdrawals , ” and that Amy “would need to be transferred to another hospital for further t reatment.” Staff had also observed respondent

- father arguing with respondent

- mother with his hand around her neck. Respondent

- father “admitted that he and [respondent

- mother] had been using illegal Subutex” and stated that they were living in a tent in L incolnton but planned to move to South Carolina “with a man named Johnny who[m] they had met on Craigslist.” The following day, DSS obtained nonsecure custody of Amy and filed a juvenile petition alleging s he was neglected and dependent. In addition to th e events described above, the petition alleged respondent

- mother and respondent

- father had histories with child protective services involving incidents of substance abuse and domesticI N RE A.P. Opinion of the Court

- 3

- violence as well as prior criminal convictions for impaired driving and drug offenses and pending felony charges. Respondents appeared in court for a no nsecure custody hearing held on 6 November 2018 but left before their case was called. They did not attend any subsequent hearings in the case but were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The trial court held a hearing on DSS’s petition on 11 December 2018 and entered an order adjudicating Amy a neglected and dependent juvenile on 24 January 2019. 2 DSS maintained custody of Amy, and the trial court granted respondents ninety minutes per week of supervised visitation conditioned upon a weekly drug test. The trial court ordered each respondent to obtain substance abuse assessments and follow all treatment recommendations, to submit to random drug screens as

re quested by DSS, to obtain and maintain stable housing and employment, a nd to attend parenting classes. The trial court r eiterated these requirements in a review order entered on 19 March 2019. A permanency planning hearing was held on 4 June 2019. In the resulting order entered on 12 July 2019, the trial court established for Amy a primary permanent plan of adoption with a s econdary plan of reunification. The court found

2 At the time of the hearing, DSS had not received the results of respondent

- father’s DNA paternity test, but respondent

- father was named on the bir th certificate as Amy’s father.I N RE A.P. Opinion of the Court

- 4

- respondents had yet to comply with its prior orders, were not cooperating with DSS,

an d had attended no visits with Amy since 7 December 2018. On 1 August 2019, DSS filed a petition to terminate respondents’ parental rights in Amy. A summons was issued to both respondents the same day. After unsuccessfully attempting to effect personal ser vice upon respondents, DSS filed a motion for leave to serve respondents by publication on 24 September 2019. See N.C.G.S. § 7 B

- 1106(a) (2019). The trial court granted the motion after a hearing held on 1 October 2019. In its order, the court detailed the steps undertaken by DSS to ascertain the “current address or whereabouts” of respondents and found the agency “has made diligent efforts to serve a copy of the petition and summons on the parents

. . . through multiple addresses, all of which [ have] been r eturned unserved.” The court directed DSS to serve respondents by publication in both Lincoln County and M cDowell County, North Carolina. Counsel subsequently filed affidavits with the court confirming DSS had served respondent

- mother and respondent

- father in accordance with the procedures in N.C.G.S. §§ 1

- 75.10(a)(2) and 1A

- 1, Rule 4(j1)

– (j2)(3) (2019) by publishing a separate “Notice of Service of Process by Publication” addressed to each respondent in the Lincoln Times

- News newspaper on 14, 21, and 28 Oc tober 2019 and in The McDowell News on 25 October, 1 November, and 8 November 2019
. The trial court held a termination of parental rights hearing on 21 January 2020. Respondents did not attend the hearing but were represented by counsel,I N RE A.P. Opinion of the Court

- 5

- neither of whom ob jected to the form of service or to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over their client. See generally In re J.T. , 363 N.C. 1, 4, 672 S.E.2d 17, 18 (2009) (noting that “a ny form of general appearance ‘ waives all defects and irregularities in th e process and gives the court jurisdiction of the answering party even though there may have been no service of summons ’ ” (quoting Harmon v. Harmon , 245 N.C. 83, 86, 95 S.E.2d 355, 359 (1956) )). Based on the evidence adduced by DSS and the guardian ad li tem , the trial court entered an order on 10 February 2020 terminating respo ndents’ parental rights in Amy. As grounds for termination, the court concluded that respondents had neglected Amy and were likely to subject her to further neglect if she returned to their

care and that respondents had willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of Amy’s cost of care for the six

- month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate their parental rights. N.C.G. S. § 7B

- 1111(a)(1), (3) (2019). The court also considered the dispositional factors in N.C.G.S. § 7B

- 1110(a) (2019) and determined it was in Amy’s best interests that respondents’ parental rights be terminated. Respondents each filed and served timely notice of appeal. Counsel for respon dent

- mother and respondent

- father have jointly filed a no

merit brief on behalf of their clients pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In their brief, counsel identified three issues arguably supporting an appeal but explained why th ey believed these issues lacked merit. Counsel also advised respondent

- mother and respondent

- father of their right to file pro se writtenI N RE A.P. Opinion of the Court

- 6

- arguments with this Court and provided them with th e documents necessary to do

so. Neither respondent has submitted wr itten arguments to this Court. We carefully and independently review the issues identified by counsel in a no

merit brief in light of the entire record. In re L.E.M. , 372 N.C. 396, 402, 831 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2019). Having undertaken this review, we are sati sfied that the trial court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over respondents and that its 10 February 2020 order is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. We therefore affirm the order terminating res pondents’ parental rights. AFFIRMED.