IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA18-1031-2

Filed: 21 April 2020

New Hanover County, No. 16 JT 174-75

IN THE MATTER OF C.N., A.N.

Appeal by respondent from order entered 3 July 2018 by Judge J. H. Corpening 

II in New Hanover County District Court. This case was originally heard in the Court 

of Appeals 27 June 2019. In re C.N., A.N., ___ N.C. App. ___, 831 S.E.2d 878 (2019). 

Upon remand from the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

No brief filed for petitioner-appellee New Hanover County Department of Social 

Services.

Mary McCullers Reece for respondent-appellant mother.

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Jessica Gorczynski, for guardian ad 

litem. 

TYSON, Judge.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina remanded this case for this Court “to 

reconsider its holding in light of In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 831 S.E.2d 305 (2019) 

and In re D.W.P. and B.A.L.P., ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d. ___ (2020).” We have 

reviewed both decisions as analyzed herein, and hold these opinions, together or 

individually, do not change or affect this Court’s the earlier mandate.

I. Factual and Procedural Background
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

The facts underlying the petition and adjudication to terminate Respondentmother’s parental rights are fully set forth in this Court’s opinion in In re C.N., A.N., 

___ N.C. App. ___, 831 S.E.2d 878 (2019). The pertinent facts and procedural 

background are set out below.

During May 2016, the New Hanover County Department of Social Services 

(“DSS”) received a report that Respondent-mother’s minor daughter “Anne” was 

found wandering alone behind a store on Carolina Beach Road in New Hanover 

County. See N.C. R. App. P. 42(b) (pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the 

juveniles).

On or about 28 June 2016, Respondent-mother called 911. Respondent-mother 

reported her other minor daughter, “Carrie,” had pulled up on a table and spilled an 

open bottle of Mr. Clean liquid detergent onto herself. EMS and law enforcement,

who responded to the 911 call, reported conditions inside the home were dirty and in 

poor shape. Carrie was treated for corneal abrasions and chemical burns on her 

tongue.

DSS obtained nonsecure custody of eleven-month-old Carrie and two-year-old 

Anne and filed a juvenile petition alleging they were neglected juveniles. 

Respondent-mother stipulated to the allegations that Carrie and Anne were 

neglected, on the basis they did not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline,

and lived in an environment injurious to their welfare, in the juvenile petition at the 
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

adjudication hearing. The trial court adjudicated Carrie and Anne to be neglected 

juveniles based upon Respondent-mother’s stipulation.

On 8 February 2018, DSS filed a petition to terminate Respondent-mother’s 

parental rights to Carrie and Anne. DSS alleged the following grounds for 

termination of Respondent-mother’s parental rights: neglect and willful failure to 

make reasonable progress. The petition was heard on 23 and 26 April 2018. 

The trial court made the following findings of fact: 

3. . . . Both children have been in the legal custody of [DSS] 

since June 28, 2016, were residing in a kinship placement 

with a maternal aunt and have currently been residing 

with licensed foster parents since being placed in an out of 

home placement. 

. . . .

10. That [Carrie] and [Anne] were adjudicated neglected 

Juveniles within the meaning of G.S. 7B-101(15) at a 

hearing held on August 24, 2016 where RespondentParents stipulated to the allegations in the petition. 

Respondent-Mother was ordered to comply with her Case 

Plan; obtain and maintain stable income and housing; 

submit to a substance abuse assessment and to comply 

with all recommendations; complete a mental health 

assessment and comply with all recommendations; 

successfully complete parenting classes; and participate in 

random drug screens. . . . 

11. That from June 2016 through February 2018 

Respondent-Mother demonstrated a pattern of instability 

in housing and income. She has lived with several different 

boyfriends within New Hanover and Bladen County and 

earns income by cleaning houses and selling things on 

eBay. For the past year, Respondent-Mother has primarily 
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

resided with a boyfriend in Carolina Beach. She is 

financially dependent on her boyfriend for transportation, 

income and housing. Respondent-Mother has been 

inconsistent with her communication with [DSS], has not 

provided a current, working telephone number, has not 

provided an email address, does not return phone calls, has 

missed appointments and was not engaged when she did 

attend. [DSS] has provided her with bus passes and offered 

individual transportation. Respondent-Mother completed 

her substance abuse assessment but not the recommended 

treatment consisting of intensive out-patient, community 

support, 12 step program, individual therapy, skill set, 

SAIOP, after care and relapse prevention. RespondentMother started to participate in her treatment plan then 

elected to detox at home in August 2016. She disengaged 

with services, moved from her service area, and then 

sporadically re-engaged with services in early 2018. She 

accessed mental health treatment in August 2017 and outpatient therapy was recommended to help her cope with 

her depressive order, ADHD, alcohol and Opioid use. 

Respondent-Mother self-reports that she “has so much 

going on”, that she has depression and runs from or ignores 

her problems, copes with it by sleeping for days and not 

eating. She stopped attending classes at Coastal Horizons 

because she “thought they were a joke” and would have 

enrolled in substance abuse treatment if she thought it was 

important. Respondent-Mother completed her parenting 

classes and participated in 13 out of 38 drug screen 

requests with mixed negative and positive results for 

benzodiazepines and amphetamines. During a home visit, 

Respondent-Mother was unable to account for her missing 

medication and thought she may have taken extra. 

Respondent-Mother had multiple phone issues during the 

underlying matter. Her boyfriend pays for her phone and 

has taken it from her when she texted someone else. 

Respondent-Mother and her boyfriend have broken up a 

few times over the past year when she texts other people. 

To date, Respondent-Mother has not been consistent with 

any treatment, is not compliant with her case plan and reengaged in some services at lunch time on the first day of 
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

this hearing. 

. . . .

15. . . . Respondent-Mother was late to visits in November 

2017 and December 2017 and did not notify anyone when 

she did not attend visits in August 2017, September 2017, 

January 2018, and March 2018. When visits with 

Respondent-Mother occurred, she would bring snacks and 

gifts for the children and interact appropriately with the 

children.

The trial court found grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable 

progress existed to terminate Respondent-mother’s parental rights. The trial court 

concluded Carrie and Anne’s best interests required termination of Respondentmother’s parental rights in an order entered 3 July 2018. Respondent-mother timely 

appealed. 

When initially reviewed on appeal, this Court unanimously held the evidence 

presented and the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support the conclusion 

that Respondent-mother’s “neglect is ongoing, and there is a probability of repetition 

of neglect.” We further concluded DSS’ evidence failed to show Respondent-mother 

had failed to make reasonable progress to support the conclusion to terminate her 

parental rights on this ground. 

II. In re B.O.A.

In the case of In re B.O.A., the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the 

respondent-mother’s parental rights were subject to termination on the ground that 

she had failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to 
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

her daughter’s removal from her home pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §7B-1111(a)(2).

In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. at 373, 831 S.E.2d at 306.

In that case, “Bev” had been removed from her mother’s home after local law 

enforcement had responded to the respondent-mother’s call for assistance due to 

assaultive behavior by Bev’s father and a “lengthy bruise” was discovered on Bev’s 

arm. Id. at 373, 831 S.E.2d at 307. After a hearing, Bev was adjudicated neglected 

and the respondent-mother was required to comply with a case plan. Id. at 374, 831 

S.E.2d at 307.

The case plan included requirements that respondent-mother: “obtain a 

mental health assessment; complete domestic violence counseling and avoid 

situations involving domestic violence; complete a parenting class and utilize the 

skills learned in the class during visits with the child; remain drug-free; submit to 

random drug screenings; participate in weekly substance abuse group therapy 

meetings; continue to attend medication management sessions; refrain from 

engaging in criminal activity; and maintain stable income for at least three months.” 

Id. at 373-74, 831 S.E.2d 307.

Eventually, DSS petitioned to terminate the respondent-mother’s parental 

rights. In the termination order, the trial court made findings, which included that 

the respondent-mother had not demonstrated the skills she was to learn in her 

domestic violence class. The trial court found “[i]n the last six months, [respondent-
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

mother] has called the police on her live-in boyfriend and father of her new born 

child,” and that she had “not remained free of controlled substances, and has

continued to test positive for controlled substances (even during her recent 

pregnancy).” Id. at 374-75, 831 S.E.2d 307. The trial court further found the 

respondent-mother had declined a visit with her child, was hostile towards her social 

worker, revoked her consent to allow DSS access to her mental health records, and 

told the trial court that she “could pass the Bar today.” Id. at 375-76, 831 S.E.2d 308.

Here, the evidence and the findings support the conclusion that Respondentmother made progress on her case plan. Respondent-mother’s progress is in contrast 

the respondent-mother’s behaviors and lack of progress in In re B.O.A. Further, our 

Supreme Court held in In re B.O.A. that this Court had adopted a restrictive 

construction of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) in defining the conditions which led 

to a juvenile’s removal. Id. at 385, 831 S.E.2d at 314.

In the present case, the panel of this Court reviewing the trial court’s order 

properly reviewed the facts as found on the evidence presented and determined they 

were insufficient to support conclusions to satisfy the statutory definitions of neglect 

and failure to make reasonable progress to terminate Respondent-mother’s parental 

rights. This Court’s prior decision contained no “restricted” reading of the conditions

which led to Carrie and Anne’s removal. Id. The background, analysis, and 

conclusions in In re B.O.A. are distinct from and not controlling of the present case.
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

III. In re D.W.P.

This Court was also directed to review and reconsider our holding in light of In 

re D.W.P., ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2020 WL 967615 (2020). In this recent case, 

our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s termination of a respondent-mother’s 

parental rights based upon her lack of reasonable progress to remedy the conditions 

that led to the removal of her children. ___ N.C. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___, 2020 WL 

967615, at *1.

In In re D.W.P., our Supreme Court recognized that the trial court’s order 

relied upon the following: 

past abuse and neglect; failure to provide a credible 

explanation for [the child’s] injuries; respondent-mother’s 

discontinuance of therapy; respondent-mother’s failure to 

complete a psychiatric evaluation; respondent-mother’s 

violation of the conditions of her probation; the home 

environment of domestic violence; respondent-mother’s 

concealment of her marriage from GCDHHS; and 

respondent-mother’s refusal to provide an explanation for 

or accept responsibility for [the child’s] injuries. 

___ N.C.at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___, 2020 WL 967615, at *8.

The Supreme Court also recognized the respondent-mother had made some 

progress in completing her plan, but indicated the findings showed she had been 

“unable to recognize and break patterns of abuse that put her children at risk.” Id. 

The Court stated it was “troubled by [the respondent-mother’s] continued failure to 

acknowledge the likely cause of [the child’s] injuries.” Id.
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

The facts of the present case are inapposite to those of In re D.W.P. Nothing 

indicates Respondent-mother has continued to place her children at risk or failed to 

acknowledge her neglect was the cause of the initial injury to Carrie and the instance 

of lack of supervision of Anne. Respondent-mother stipulated to the allegations that 

Carrie and Anne were neglected, in that they did not receive proper care, supervision, 

or discipline, and lived in an environment injurious to their welfare, in the juvenile 

petition at adjudication.

In the order remanding this case for further consideration, our Supreme Court 

cited In re D.W.P., and noted “the need for a court to review all applicable evidence, 

including historical facts and evidence of changed conditions to evaluate the 

probability of future neglect.” We conclude no evidence or findings show the “neglect 

is ongoing, and there is a probability of repetition of neglect,” or Respondent-mother’s 

failure to make “reasonable progress.” We reaffirm the analysis and reasoning, as 

extended herein, and result reached in our earlier opinion to reverse and remand.

IV. Conclusion

Respondent-mother completed a parenting class, completed her substance

abuse assessment, participated in individual therapy sessions to address her mental 

health, had re-engaged in treatment, was employed, submitted to drug testing, had 

established more reliable communications with DSS, had obtained stable housing 
IN RE C.N., A.N.

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

and transportation to become a better parent, and showed reasonable progress to 

reduce or remove the likelihood of future neglect.

Respondent-mother’s minor daughters were removed from her care after the 

youngest child had spilled Mr. Clean onto herself and Respondent-mother had 

immediately sought medical assistance. No evidence shows and the trial court made 

no finding indicating either Respondent-mother had denied responsibility or a 

probability that her actions were likely to be repeated. See In re D.W.P., ___ N.C. at 

___, ___ S.E.2d at ___, 2020 WL 967615, at *8; In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. at 373, 831 

S.E.2d at 306. The evidence and the trial court’s findings support the opposite 

conclusion.

The trial court’s order terminating Respondent-mother’s parental rights is 

reversed and remanded to the trial court for disposition in accordance with the 

opinion and mandate of this Court filed 6 August 2019. It is so ordered.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judges DILLON and BERGER concur.