IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-108

No. 48A21

Filed 24 September 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: K.B. & G.B.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from orders entered on 20

October 2020 by Judge Beverly Scarlett in the District Court of Orange County. This 

matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 19 August 2021 but 

determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of 

the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Stephenson & Fleming, LLP, by Deana K. Fleming, for petitioner-appellee 

Orange County Department of Social Services.

Steven C. Wilson for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Jeffrey L. Miller for respondent-appellant mother.

Sydney Batch for respondent-appellant father.

HUDSON, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondents appeal from orders terminating their parental rights in their 

children, K.B. (Kate)1 and G.B. (Greg) (collectively the children). Respondent-mother 

challenges the trial court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate her parental 

rights in the children pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) (2019). 

 

1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the juveniles and for ease of reading.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

Respondent-father argues the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it 

was in the children’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated. For the 

reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 Respondents are the parents of Kate, born in September 2012, and Greg, born 

in December 2014. On 22 February 2013, Orange County Department of Social 

Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging Kate was a neglected and dependent juvenile. 

The petition alleged that in September 2012, DSS received a report that respondents 

had a violent argument wherein law enforcement was called, both parents were 

intoxicated, and Kate was present. As a result of this incident, respondents signed a 

safety plan in which they agreed to refrain from drinking when caring for Kate and 

from arguing in Kate’s presence. On 1 November 2012, however, law enforcement 

responded to another domestic violence call. Then, on 25 December 2012, respondentfather reported to law enforcement that respondent-mother was intoxicated and 

driving with Kate in the back seat of the car. On 14 February 2013, respondentmother was stopped by the North Carolina Highway Patrol for driving under the 

influence. A safety agreement was reached where respondent-mother agreed to not 

drive Kate except to drop her off at daycare in the mornings. The petition further 

alleged that respondent-father completed a substance abuse assessment and had 

been cooperative with DSS but continued to abuse alcohol. He acknowledged his 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

addiction and agreed to seek treatment. Respondent-mother was less cooperative 

with DSS and denied her addiction. DSS alleged that Kate was at high risk of harm 

due to respondents’ substance abuse. 

¶ 3 On 5 March 2013, respondents agreed to entry of a consent order that granted 

temporary custody of Kate to DSS. On 21 March 2013, the trial court entered a 

temporary custody order continuing Kate’s custody with DSS. On 29 May 2013, Kate 

was adjudicated a neglected and dependent juvenile, and the trial court concluded 

that it was in her best interests that she remain in the custody of DSS. Respondentmother was ordered to complete a screening for Family Drug Treatment Court 

(FDTC) and, if accepted, to comply with treatment recommendations. In the event 

she was not accepted into FDTC, the court ordered her to engage in intensive 

outpatient substance abuse services and to follow all recommendations. Respondentfather was ordered to continue to engage in substance abuse treatment and follow all 

recommendations and to engage in mental health treatment to address anger issues. 

Respondents were ordered to complete drug and alcohol screens as requested by DSS,

to refrain from using drugs or alcohol, and to have supervised visitation with Kate. 

¶ 4 On 7 August 2013, the trial court entered an order suspending Kate’s visitation 

with respondent-mother. The trial court entered a permanency planning order on 17 

December 2013 reinstating respondent-mother’s supervised visitation with Kate and 

setting the permanent plan for Kate to be reunification with respondent-father with 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

a concurrent plan of reunification with respondent-mother. The trial court entered a

permanency planning order on 19 March 2014, setting reunification with respondentfather as the permanent plan for Kate with a concurrent plan of guardianship with 

the maternal grandmother and authorizing a trial home placement of Kate with 

respondent-father. On 30 January 2015, the trial court entered a permanency 

planning and custody order awarding respondent-father custody of Kate and granting 

supervised visitation to respondent-mother. The order transferred jurisdiction from 

juvenile to domestic court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-911.

¶ 5 On 17 December 2015, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging that Kate and Greg 

were neglected and dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that on 11 December 

2015, DSS received a report of domestic violence and substance abuse by respondents.

Respondent-mother reported that respondent-father had been “smoking crack” at 

least five times a week, drinking alcohol, and acting erratically. She also reported 

that domestic violence occurred between them. Respondent-father was arrested on 9 

December 2015 and released the following day. Respondents failed to complete a drug 

screen as requested. Respondent-father reported taking Percocet, and respondentmother reported using alcohol and marijuana a month earlier. 

¶ 6 On 22 December 2015, respondents agreed to the entry of a consent order that 

continued non-secure custody and placement authority with DSS. On 29 February 

2016, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Kate and Greg to be neglected 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

juveniles and continuing custody with DSS. Respondents were ordered to, among 

other things, participate in substance abuse services and follow recommendations, 

submit to random drug screens, participate in individual therapy, and participate in 

supervised visitation with the children. On 15 June 2016, the trial court entered a 

custody order that continued custody of Kate and Greg with DSS and set the primary 

plan as reunification with a parent, with a secondary plan of guardianship/custody 

with a relative.

¶ 7 On 3 January 2017, the trial court entered a permanency planning order

authorizing a trial home placement of Kate and Greg with respondent-father. The 

trial court entered a permanency planning and custody order on 9 March 2017 

awarding custody of Kate and Greg to respondent-father and granting supervised 

visitation to respondent-mother. The order transferred jurisdiction from juvenile to 

domestic court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-911. 

¶ 8 On 11 April 2019, DSS obtained non-secure custody of Kate and Greg and 

placed them in their maternal grandmother’s home, where respondent-mother was 

also living. DSS also filed juvenile petitions alleging them to be neglected juveniles. 

The petition alleged that on 7 April 2019, there was an argument between 

respondent-father and his eldest daughter’s2 boyfriend in which respondent-father 

attempted to strike the boyfriend with a bat and aimed a gun at him. Kate was inside 

 

2 Respondent-father’s eldest daughter is not a subject of this appeal.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

the home during the incident. On 10 April 2019, DSS received a Child Protective 

Services (CPS) report that respondent-father had physically abused his eldest 

daughter. His eldest daughter reported that respondent-father was abusing 

substances, sleeping all day (resulting in her truancy), and staying away from home 

for extended periods of time without communication. Respondent-mother completed 

a drug screen on 9 January 2019 which was “positive for extended opiates, 

oxycodone.” Respondent-mother had not engaged in any substance abuse treatment 

since respondent-father was awarded custody of Kate and Greg in 2017. The petition 

further alleged Kate and Greg were at substantial risk of mental, physical, and 

emotional impairment in the care and custody of respondent-father, and respondentmother was not appropriate for placement. On 16 April 2019, respondents agreed to 

a consent order that continued custody of Kate and Greg with DSS, ordered 

supervised visitation with respondent-father, and ordered respondent-mother to be 

supervised at all times around the children. 

¶ 9 On 13 August 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Kate and 

Greg to be neglected juveniles. The trial court continued the children’s placement 

with their maternal grandmother and allowed respondent-mother to continue living 

in the home with the children, as long as her contact with them was supervised by 

the maternal grandmother or other DSS-approved supervisor. Respondent-father 

was granted supervised visitation with the children. Respondent-father was ordered 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

to: comply with random drug screens; complete an assessment with Pathways to 

Change and follow recommendations; complete updated mental health and substance 

abuse assessments and follow recommendations; and comply with all 

recommendations of FDTC. Respondent-mother was ordered to comply with random 

drug screens and complete a substance abuse and mental health assessment and 

follow all recommendations.

¶ 10 On 6 August 2019, respondent-mother filed a motion for unsupervised 

visitation with the children. On 29 August 2019, the trial court ordered respondentmother to comply with random drug screens, to complete A Fresh Start treatment 

program and follow recommendations, to engage in current substance abuse 

treatment consistent with her case plan, and to have negative drug screens. The trial 

court also ordered that respondent-mother’s visitation and contacts with the children 

should remain supervised, but granted DSS and the treatment team discretion to 

allow unsupervised visitation and contact upon respondent-mother’s compliance with 

the order.

¶ 11 On 22 October 2019, the trial court entered a custody review order finding that 

respondent-mother tested positive for oxycodone in January 2019, April 2019, and 

May 2019 and tested positive for amphetamines, heroin, and alcohol on 28 August 

2019. Respondent-mother had failed to consistently engage in individual or group 

therapy, and her current engagement in treatment at A Fresh Start did not meet her 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

current level of need. The trial court found that respondent-father lost his housing in 

June 2019. He was diagnosed with cocaine, alcohol, cannabis, and opioid dependence 

and had not been compliant with requested drug screens. The trial court continued 

custody of the children with DSS, continued the children’s placement with the 

maternal grandmother, authorized respondent-mother to live in the placement with 

the children, and continued respondent-father’s supervised visitation with the 

children.

¶ 12 In January 2020, DSS learned that respondent-mother had taken the children, 

without the maternal grandmother, to Raleigh unsupervised. As a result, on 9 

January 2020, Kate and Greg were moved to a foster home.

¶ 13 Following a permanency planning hearing on 16 January 2020, the trial court 

entered an order on 3 February 2020 finding that respondent-father was currently 

homeless and had not consistently engaged in treatment or services. Respondentfather had completed detox in May, June, and August of 2019. After his discharge 

from detox in June, “he went to an Oxford House but was asked to leave in the first 

week of July,” and after his discharge from detox in August, he went to a halfway 

house but left after approximately two weeks. The trial court further found that 

respondent-mother had been unable to sustain consistent engagement in services to 

address her substance abuse and mental health issues until recently. She had tested 

positive for alcohol, heroin, and opiates in October, November, and December 2019,
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

and positive for alcohol in January 2020. Respondent-mother had not been in contact 

with DSS since 22 October 2019 and had failed to maintain stable housing and 

transportation. The primary permanent plan for Kate and Greg was changed to 

adoption with a secondary plan of reunification. 

¶ 14 On 28 April 2020, DSS filed motions to terminate respondents’ parental rights 

in Kate and Greg. DSS alleged that respondents had neglected the children, see

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019), and willfully placed them in foster care or placement 

outside the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress 

to correct the conditions which led to their removal, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) 

(2019). 

¶ 15 Following hearings on 20 August 2020 and 8 September 2020, the trial court 

entered orders on 20 October 2020 concluding that grounds existed to terminate 

respondents’ parental rights in the children pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and 

(2). The trial court also concluded that it was in the children’s best interests that 

respondents’ parental rights be terminated and terminated respondents’ parental 

rights. Respondents appeal.

II. Analysis

A. Respondent-mother’s Appeal

¶ 16 Respondent-mother challenges some of the trial court’s findings of fact as not 

being supported by the evidence and contends the trial court’s findings of fact were 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

insufficient to support its conclusions that grounds existed to terminate her parental 

rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(2). We first address termination under 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1).

¶ 17 “Our Juvenile Code provides for a two-step process for termination of parental 

rights proceedings consisting of an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage.” 

In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 94 (2020) (citing N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-1109, -1110 (2019)). “At 

the adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by ‘clear, cogent, 

and convincing evidence’ the existence of one or more grounds for termination under 

section 7B-1111(a) of the General Statutes.” In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3, 5–6 (2019) 

(quoting N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(f) (2019)). We review a trial court’s adjudication of 

grounds to terminate parental rights “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)). Unchallenged findings are deemed to be supported by the 

evidence and are binding on appeal. In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 437 (2019). “The trial 

court’s conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.” In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 

16, 19 (2019).

¶ 18 Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), a trial court may terminate parental rights if 

it concludes the parent has neglected the juvenile within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-101. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019). A neglected juvenile is defined, in 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

pertinent part, as a juvenile “whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker does 

not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; or who has been abandoned; . . . or 

who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile’s welfare[.]” N.C.G.S. § 7B101(15) (2019). The conditions at issue must result in “some physical, mental, or 

emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment . . . .” 

In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 283 (2003) (citation omitted).

Termination of parental rights based upon this statutory 

ground requires a showing of neglect at the time of the 

termination hearing or, if the child has been separated 

from the parent for a long period of time, there must be a 

showing of a likelihood of future neglect by the 

parent. When determining whether such future neglect is 

likely, the district court must consider evidence of changed 

circumstances occurring between the period of past neglect 

and the time of the termination hearing.

In re R.L.D., 375 N.C. 838, 841 (2020) (cleaned up). “A parent’s failure to make 

progress in completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect.” 

In re M.A., 374 N.C. 865, 870 (2020) (quoting In re M.J.S.M., 257 N.C. App. 633, 637 

(2018)).

¶ 19 Here, there were no allegations that respondent-mother was currently 

neglecting Kate and Greg at the time of the termination hearing. Moreover, it is 

undisputed that the children were out of respondent-mother’s custody for an extended 

period of time and that they were previously adjudicated to be neglected juveniles on 

13 August 2019. Accordingly, the issue before this Court is whether the trial court 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

properly determined that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the children were 

returned to respondent-mother’s care. 

¶ 20 In its termination orders, the trial court made numerous findings of fact to 

support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother’s 

parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), as described in the background 

section of this opinion. The trial court found that respondent-mother failed to take 

the juvenile case, CPS involvement, and her substance use disorder seriously, and 

that respondent-mother’s continued drug use, failure to maintain a safe and stable 

home, and failure to assure the children received necessary care and supervision 

subjected the children to the risks of physical and emotional harm and created an 

injurious environment. The trial court found that there was likelihood of a repetition 

of neglect if the children were returned to respondent-mother’s care because she had 

not appropriately engaged in or completed recommended substance abuse or mental 

health treatment, and she had continued to deny that her substance use was an issue 

related to parenting, failed to understand concerns related to her unsupervised 

contact with and transporting of the children, failed to make any efforts to address 

her history of domestic violence and its impact on the children, and failed to maintain 

or establish a safe home for the children.

¶ 21 On appeal, respondent-mother first argues that “[o]ther than her drug screen 

test results showing substance use and the two incidents of a lack of supervision, and 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

her inconsistent engagement in therapy,” there was no evidence presented of any 

actual impact or impairment suffered by the children. She asserts that the trial 

court’s findings “shed little light” on how her substance use and inconsistent 

engagement in mental health treatment impacted the children. We disagree.

¶ 22 As noted above, to establish neglect, the conditions at issue must result in 

“some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk

of such impairment . . . .” In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283 (citation omitted). Here, the 

trial court made express findings that Kate and Greg were impaired or at a 

substantial risk of impairment as a result of respondent mother’s neglect. Regarding 

both children, the trial court found:

[81. and 82.] Respondent mother failed to take the juvenile 

case, CPS involvement, and her substance use disorder 

seriously. She incredulously fails to understand the noted 

safety concerns of the [children] unsupervised in her care 

while she continues to use unprescribed and illegal 

substances.3

¶ 23 Regarding Kate, the trial court found:

83. [Kate] was impaired and at a substantial risk of 

impairment as a result of Respondent mother’s neglect. 

Specifically, this court finds [the] following facts:

a. This court references and fully incorporates 

Findings of Fact numbers 1 through 82 and subparts 

set forth above as if set forth fully below as findings 

 

3 This finding of fact is labeled as finding of fact number 82 in the order terminating 

respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate. It is labeled finding of fact 81 in the order 

terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg. 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

of fact.

b. Respondent mother’s continued drug abuse, her 

failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and her 

failure to assure that [Kate] receives necessary care 

and supervision subjects [Kate] to the risks of 

physical and emotional harm and creates an 

environment injurious to her welfare. 

c. [Kate] exhibits parentified behaviors in relation to 

her younger sibling, [Greg], in that she has taken on 

the roles and responsibility of caretaker in the home 

due to improper supervision and care.

d. [Kate] is diagnosed with adjustment disorder and 

she is engaged in recommended weekly therapy.

e. Respondent mother has not had authorized 

unsupervised contact with [Kate] since custody was 

granted to Respondent father and then to [DSS] due 

to continued safety concerns related to her 

substance use.

f. While [Kate] was in the placement with [the 

maternal grandmother], there are noted concerns 

regarding Respondent mother having unsupervised 

contact and the extent to which [Kate] was providing 

care for [Greg] who exhibits significant disruptive 

behaviors.

¶ 24 Regarding Greg, the trial court found:

82. [Greg] was impaired and at a substantial risk of 

impairment as a result of Respondent mother’s neglect. 

Specifically, this court finds [the] following facts:

a. This court references and fully incorporates 

Findings of Fact numbers 1 through 81 and subparts 

set forth above as if set forth fully below as findings 

of fact.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

b. Respondent mother’s continued drug abuse, her 

failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and her 

failure to assure that [Greg] receives necessary care 

and supervision subjects [Greg] to the risks of 

physical and emotional harm and creates an 

environment injurious to h[is] welfare. 

c. [Greg] has exhibited difficulty in regulating his 

behaviors since [DSS] was awarded custody, 

including during placement with [the] maternal 

grandmother . . . , in his current foster home 

placement as well as daycare and school.

d. [Greg’s] behaviors include not listening to 

directions, temper tantrums, problematic or lack of 

nighttime routine, sleep disturbance, and hitting.

e. [Greg] is diagnosed with adjustment disorder and 

he displays PTSD symptom[s]. He is engaged in 

recommended weekly individual therapy.

f. [Greg] had a recent psychiatric evaluation which 

recommended psychotropic medications to assist 

with his sleep. Lack of sleep has a corresponding 

negative impact on his behaviors.

g. On July 24, 2020, Respondent mother participated 

in a virtual meeting with UNC Psychiatry to discuss 

the recommendation of using psychotropic 

medication coupled with therapy to assist in 

managing [Greg’s] behaviors and sleep disturbance. 

Respondent mother withheld consent for 

medication.

¶ 25 Respondent-mother contends that the foregoing findings of fact constitute 

“purported and speculated impairments or risks of impairment” to the children which 

were unsupported by the evidence and insufficient to support neglect. She also 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

challenges the portions of findings regarding the children’s difficulty in regulating 

behavior, the children’s diagnoses of adjustment disorder, and Kate’s “parentified” 

behaviors, arguing that the evidence on these issues were presented at the disposition 

stage, not at the adjudication stage. A review of the record establishes that these

arguments are without merit. 

¶ 26 During the adjudicatory phase of the termination hearing, a DSS social worker 

testified that respondent-mother’s multiple positive drug screens are what concerned 

DSS and caused the need for supervised contact with the children and that DSS was 

greatly concerned when respondent-mother transported the children unsupervised in 

January 2020. The DSS social worker also testified that during the time the children 

were placed in the home of their maternal grandmother and respondent-mother, they 

had “some behavioral needs.” Kate exhibited “internalizing behaviors” such as “not 

wanting to show or to talk about her emotions, not feeling comfortable when she is 

feeling something, potentially withdrawing.” She was diagnosed with adjustment 

disorder. The DSS social worker testified that Kate took on a parent role towards 

Greg and that it was concerning “because parentification of children is typically 

they’re trying to fill a role for their parents [that] are not able or not willing to provide 

for their siblings.”

¶ 27 The DSS social worker further testified that Greg had more “external 

behaviors” by engaging in outbursts, tantrums, failing to listen, and “choosing to do 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

his own task instead of what has been asked.” After the children were placed in their 

foster home, “some of their behaviors became—like come to the forefront again,

particularly for [Greg] in terms of the not listening.” His behaviors “escalated” and 

included difficulty sleeping and hitting classmates or the foster mother. Greg 

underwent an assessment at UNC Psychiatry and was diagnosed with adjustment 

disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medication to address Greg’s difficulty 

sleeping was recommended, but respondent-mother did not consent to treatment. 

Thus, finding of fact 83c, d, and f of the order terminating respondent-mother’s 

parental rights in Kate and finding of fact 82c, d, e, f, and g of the order terminating 

respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg are supported by clear, cogent, and 

convincing evidence.

¶ 28 Respondent-mother also argues that there was no evidence she failed to 

maintain a safe and stable home, and that from April 2019 until the termination 

hearings in August and September of 2020, there was no evidence she failed to 

provide necessary care or supervision subjecting either child to the risks of physical 

or emotional harm or created an environment injurious to their welfare. We disagree. 

Unchallenged findings of fact establish that while the children were placed in the 

maternal grandmother’s home where respondent-mother also resided, respondentmother was ordered to only have supervised contact with the children. DSS learned 

that on 11 July 2019, Greg stayed home with respondent-mother unsupervised, and 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

on 5 January 2020, respondent-mother drove the children unsupervised and without 

a valid driver’s license. Thereafter, on 9 January 2020, the children were placed in a 

licensed foster home due to continued safety and supervision concerns in the 

maternal grandmother’s home and lack of evidence of respondent-mother’s sustained 

sobriety. Furthermore, respondent-mother moved out of the maternal grandmother’s 

home after the children were placed in foster care and failed to be forthcoming about 

this residence. The trial court reasonably inferred from these unchallenged findings 

that the children were subjected to the risks of physical and emotional harm and that 

respondent-mother’s drug use, failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and failure 

to assure the children received necessary care and supervision created an 

environment injurious to their welfare. See In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 385, 843 (2016) 

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

credibility of the witnesses, and determine the reasonable inferences to be drawn 

therefrom). Moreover, the trial court also made the reasonable inference that 

respondent-mother failed to understand or take seriously DSS’s safety concerns of

the children being unsupervised in her care while she continued to abuse illegal 

substances. See id. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings of fact 82 and 83b in the 

order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate and findings of fact 

81 and 82b in the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in Greg are 

supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

¶ 29 Next, respondent-mother challenges the trial court’s determination that there

existed a likelihood of a repetition of neglect if the children were returned to her care. 

She contends that the trial court failed to consider and address changed 

circumstances, pointing to the fact that she provided daily care for the children while 

they were placed in the maternal grandmother’s home, there had been no domestic 

violence incidents involving respondent-mother since 2015, and she consistently 

visited the children and brought them toys after they were placed in foster care. We 

are not convinced. 

¶ 30 As an initial matter, it is well established that the “trial court need not make 

a finding as to every fact which arises from the evidence; rather, the court need only 

find those facts which are material to the resolution of the dispute.” Witherow v. 

Witherow, 99 N.C. App. 61, 63 (1990), aff’d per curiam, 328 N.C. 324 (1991). As 

previously stated, respondent-mother’s failure to make progress in completing a case 

plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect. In re M.A., 374 N.C. at 870. The

trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact reflect that respondent-mother had not 

adequately made progress in completing her case plan at the time of the termination 

hearing. After DSS obtained custody of the children in April 2019, she agreed to 

complete an updated mental health and substance abuse assessment and follow all 

recommendations, to comply with random drug screens including urine, hair and/or 

nail screens, and to be screened for potential participation in FDTC. However, by the 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

time of the termination hearing, she had not consistently engaged in mental health 

treatment, was not engaged in substance abuse treatment, continued to deny she had 

substance abuse issues, failed to follow substance abuse treatment and mental health

recommendations, and tested positive or failed to comply with numerous random 

drug screens. Based on the foregoing, the trial court properly determined that 

respondent-mother neglected the children, and there was a likelihood of future 

neglect if Kate and Greg were returned to respondent-mother’s care. Because the 

existence of a single ground for termination suffices to support the termination of a 

parent’s parental rights in a child, see In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190, 194 (2019), we need 

not address whether the trial court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights 

pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2).

B. Respondent-father’s Appeal

¶ 31 Respondent-father’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its 

discretion in determining that it was in Kate and Greg’s best interests that his 

parental rights be terminated. Specifically, he contends that he had a strong bond 

with his children, and Greg’s behaviors made adoption unlikely. Based on the reasons 

stated herein, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining 

that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the 

children.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

¶ 32 “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. at 842 (citing In re Young, 346 N.C. 244, 247 (1997); 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110). Unchallenged dispositional findings are binding on appeal. In 

re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. at 437. A trial court’s best interests determination “is reviewed 

solely for abuse of discretion.” In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. at 6 (citing In re D.L.W., 368 

N.C. at 842). 

¶ 33 In determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests 

of a juvenile:

The 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.

(5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile and 

the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, custodian, or 

other permanent placement.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

(6) Any relevant consideration.

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) (2019). 

¶ 34 In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings about Kate

concerning the factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a):

105. [Kate’s] age is seven (7). Her age is not a barrier to 

adoption. 

106. Termination of Respondent father’s parental rights is 

necessary to implement [Kate’s] primary permanent plan 

of adoption. Adoption offers [Kate] the highest level of 

security and legal permanence. 

107. Termination of parental rights [is] the only barrier to 

the adoption of [Kate] and this barrier be [sic] overcome in 

a reasonable period of time by entry of this order. 

108. The likelihood of adoption is high. [Kate] is placed in 

a licensed foster home with [Greg]. The foster parents have 

expressed a willingness to adopt [Kate] while also 

recognizing the strong bond [Kate] has with [Greg].

109. While [Kate’s] behaviors related to adjustment 

disorder and adjustment disorder can be managed by the 

foster parents through individual therapy and parenting 

strategies, [Greg] exhibits behaviors for which medication 

has been recommended, but not yet started due to lack of 

consent.

110. The foster parents are interested in adopting [Kate 

and Greg] as a sibling group; however, they want to ensure 

that they can manage [Greg’s] needs. They are optimistic 

in following treatment recommendations, including 

psychotropic medication, for [Greg] to allow for both 

[children] to be adopted.
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

111. In the event the current foster parents do not adopt 

[Kate], her likelihood of adoption is still high due to her 

age, resilience, engagement in services, and overall 

positive disposition. Locating another adoptive family is 

not a barrier to her adoption.

112. [Kate] and Respondent father exhibit a strong parentchild bond at visits. They greet each other with big smiles 

and hugs. She engages well with him at visits, although at 

times, Respondent father has struggled to interact during 

visits. [Kate] is able to end visits without issue. 

113. [Kate] has a positive, caring relationship with her 

foster parents who are a proposed adoptive placement. The 

foster parents have a six-year old son with whom she has a 

sibling relationship. The foster home is child-friendly and 

centered, and [Kate] is encouraged to take advantage of 

being a child by playing outside or in her room instead of 

feeling responsibility for supervision of the juvenile. She 

feels safe and secure in this placement. 

¶ 35 In a separate order, the trial court made the following findings about Greg 

concerning the factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a):

105. [Greg] is age five (5). His age is not a barrier to 

adoption. 

106. Termination of Respondent father’s parental rights is 

necessary to implement [Greg’s] primary permanent plan 

of adoption. Adoption offers [Greg] the highest level of 

security and legal permanence. 

107. Termination of parental rights [is] the only barrier to 

the adoption of [Greg] and this barrier be [sic] overcome in 

a reasonable period of time by entry of this order. 

108. The likelihood of adoption is significant. [Greg] is 

placed in a licensed foster home with [Kate]. The foster 

parents recognize the strong bond [Greg] has with [Kate], 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

and they would like to adopt them as a sibling group.

109. [Greg] has displayed concerning behaviors in the 

foster placement related to his diagnosis of adjustment 

disorder and corresponding display of PTSD symptoms. 

The foster parents and current proposed adoptive 

placement have been working with [Greg’s] therapist to 

learn strategies to modify [Greg’s] behaviors, including 

positive reinforcement and a behavior chart. 

110. While these strategies have been helpful, UNC 

Psychiatry has recommended [Greg] take medications to 

help with his sleep disturbance which correlates to his 

negative behaviors. While Respondent father eventually 

consented to the recommended regime on August 10, 2020, 

Respondent mother did not consent to the medication. 

111. The foster parents are interested in adopting [Greg 

and Kate] as a sibling group; however, they want to ensure 

that they can manage [Greg’s] needs. They are optimistic 

in following treatment recommendations, including the use 

[of] psychotropic medication in addition to therapy to 

address [Greg’s] behaviors to be stabilized. 

112. [Greg] is in need of permanency and this uncertainty 

has a negative impact on his therapeutic needs. 

Termination of parental rights would allow for adoption to 

be pursued to allow for a secure, stable placement. 

113. In the event the current foster parents do not adopt 

[Greg], his likelihood of adoption is still high due to his age, 

engagement in therapeutic services, and positive 

improvement based on routine and proper supervision. 

Locating another adoptive family is not a barrier to his 

adoption due to his age and positive demeanor of [Kate] 

with whom he shares a special bond. 

114. [Greg] and Respondent father exhibit a strong parentchild bond at visits. They greet each other with big smiles 

and hugs. [Greg] engages well with him at visits, although 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

at times, Respondent father has struggled to interact 

during visits. [Greg] had difficulty separating at some of 

the initial visits, but he is currently able to end visits 

without issue and he does not ask about him between the 

visits. 

115. [Greg] has a positive, caring relationship with his 

foster parents who are a proposed adoptive placement. The 

foster parents have a six-year old son with whom he has a 

sibling relationship. This relationship has been strained 

due to [Greg’s] behaviors; however, there is encouragement 

from his providers that medication will assist in addressing 

these negative behaviors and improve the relationship 

with all family members. The foster home is child-friendly 

and centered, and [Greg] is encouraged to take advantage 

of being a child by playing outside or in [h]is room. The 

foster parents provide [Greg] a safe and secure placement 

to allow him the time to adjust to the many transitions in 

his young life.

¶ 36 First, respondent-father argues the trial court erred in finding that 

termination of his parental rights was the only barrier to adoption. Yet, the record 

evidence clearly supports this finding. A DSS social worker testified that adoption 

had been identified as the children’s primary permanent plan, and the “only” barriers 

to achieving that permanent plan were respondents’ parental rights. Thus, finding of 

fact 107 in both orders terminating respondent-father’s parental rights in the 

children is supported by the evidence.

¶ 37 Second, respondent-father contends that Greg’s behaviors made the likelihood 

of adoption unlikely and that the trial court’s finding that the likelihood of Greg’s 

adoption is “significant” contradicts its later finding that in the event his current 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

foster parents do not adopt him, his likelihood of adoption “is still high[.]” We do not 

find the trial court’s use of the term “significant” and “high” in reference to the 

likelihood of Greg’s adoption to be contradictory or inconsistent. A DSS social worker 

testified that Greg’s current foster placement was open to adoption, and although 

Greg’s behavioral issues and need for continued treatment constituted barriers, the 

foster parents were “willing to keep trying to address the behaviors to make sure they 

can meet [Greg’s] needs.” The DSS social worker further testified that the foster 

parents wanted to follow “the recommendations of [Greg’s] treating physicians at 

UNC Psychiatry and the need for medication[.]” A guardian ad litem court report also 

indicates that “[w]ith the implementation of the therapeutic plan[,] the likelihood of 

finding an adoptive home [for Greg] is good.” Thus, we do not find respondent-father’s 

arguments compelling.

¶ 38 Third, respondent-father asserts that the trial court failed to acknowledge that 

the likelihood of implementing Kate’s permanent plan of adoption was connected to 

the marked improvement of Greg’s mental health and behavioral status. We disagree

with this assessment. In finding of fact 110 of the order terminating respondentfather’s parental rights in Kate and 111 of the order terminating respondent-father’s 

parental rights in Greg, the trial court found that while the foster parents were 

interested in adopting the children “as a sibling group,” they wanted to “ensure that 

they can manage [Greg’s] needs.” The trial court also found that the foster parents 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

were optimistic in following treatment recommendations to stabilize Greg’s 

behaviors. These findings reflect the trial court’s recognition that Kate’s adoptability 

was related to the treatment of Greg’s behaviors and the foster parents’ ability to 

manage his needs. Respondent-father further asserts that the trial court erred in 

finding that it was highly likely that Kate would be adopted, but this finding is 

supported by the guardian ad litem’s court report, which states that “[t]here are no 

known barriers which would make it difficult [for Kate] to find an adoptive home.” 

¶ 39 Fourth, respondent-father argues that the children’s bond with the foster 

parents “paled in comparison” to the bond they shared with respondent-father. He 

directs the Court’s attention to the fact that he regularly talked on the phone and saw 

his children during visitation, the children were excited to see him and show him 

affection, the children were sad to see him leave, and he brought them food and toys 

at visits. He asserts that the trial court paid “little attention” to the lack of bond the 

children had with the foster parents to justify terminating his parental rights. We do 

not agree with respondent-father’s contentions. The trial court’s findings of fact 112 

and 113 in the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights in Kate and 

findings of fact 114 and 115 in its order terminating respondent-father’s parental 

rights in Greg reflect the trial court’s consideration of the children’s “strong parentchild bond” with respondent-father, as well as the children’s “positive, caring 

relationship with their foster parents[.]” The bond between respondent-father and his 
IN RE K.B. & G.B.

2021-NCSC-108

Opinion of the Court

children is just one of the factors to be considered under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a), and 

“the trial court is permitted to give greater weight to other factors.” In re Z.L.W., 372 

N.C. 432, 437 (2019).

¶ 40 The trial court’s findings demonstrate that it considered the dispositional 

factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and “performed a reasoned analysis 

weighing those factors.” In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. at 101. “Because the trial court made 

sufficient dispositional findings and performed the proper analysis of the 

dispositional factors,” id., we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in concluding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in Kate and 

Greg’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating 

respondent-father’s parental rights in Kate and Greg.

III. Conclusion

¶ 41 The trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate 

respondent-mother’s parental rights in Kate and Greg pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B1111(a)(1). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in 

Kate and Greg’s best interests that respondent-father’s parental rights be 

terminated. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders terminating respondents’ 

parental rights in Kate and Greg.

AFFIRMED.