IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-96

No. 449A20

Filed 27 August 2021

IN THE MATTER OF: J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 6 

August 2020 by Judge William F. Helms III in District Court, Union 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.

Perry, Bundy, Plyler & Long, LLP, by Ashley J. McBride, for petitionerappellee Union County Division of Social Services.

No brief for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant mother.

EARLS, Justice.

¶ 1 Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her 

parental rights to J.E.H. (Jerry), J.I.H. (Jimmy), K.T.B. (Kenny), Q.D.B. (Quentin), 

and I.T.B. (Iris).1 Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief under Rule 

3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude the issues 

 

1 Pseudonyms used in this opinion to protect the juveniles’ identities and for ease of 

reading.
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

identified by counsel as arguably supporting the appeal are meritless and therefore 

affirm the trial court’s order.

¶ 2 On 19 June 2018, the Union County Division of Social Services (DSS) filed 

juvenile petitions alleging that Jerry and Jimmy, who are twins, were neglected and 

dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that on 17 June 2018, respondent-mother 

took Jimmy to the emergency department and he was admitted to the hospital, where 

he was diagnosed with failure to thrive. The petition noted that hospital employees 

were concerned about respondent-mother’s ability to care for the twins. The petition 

further noted earlier reports to DSS that respondent-mother received no prenatal 

care while pregnant with the twins, who were born prematurely; she was diagnosed 

with postpartum depression soon after their birth; and she did not have adequate 

supplies such as diapers, formula, and clothing for the twins. The petition alleged 

DSS supplied the children with formula and diapers, but respondent-mother 

continued to fail to provide those items. Later juvenile petitions concerning the other 

children noted that a social worker reportedly observed the children being fed 

Carnation evaporated milk instead of formula. 

¶ 3 On 18 June 2018, a Child and Family Team Meeting was held, and respondentmother indicated she was unable to care for the children.2 She consented to the 

 

2 The narratives attached to the juvenile petitions for Jerry and Jimmy refer to the 

neglect and dependent status of three other children of respondent-mother, none of whom are 

the subject of this appeal.
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

children’s placement with family or in foster care. DSS obtained nonsecure custody 

of Jerry and Jimmy on 19 June 2018. Following Jimmy’s discharge from the hospital, 

he and Jerry were placed in a licensed foster home.

¶ 4 On 11 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into a case plan to facilitate 

reunification with Jerry and Jimmy, which identified her needs in the areas of

employment, housing and basic needs, emotional and mental health, and parenting 

and life skills. On 30 July 2018, respondent-mother entered into an In-Home Service 

Agreement to address her needs as they related to her other children, Kenny, 

Quentin, and Iris, who resided with their father. 

¶ 5 Following a hearing on 22 August 2018, the trial court entered an order on 20 

September 2018 that adjudicated Jerry and Jimmy as neglected and dependent

juveniles. Respondent-mother was allowed one hour of supervised visitation weekly. 

She was ordered to (1) sign releases to allow her service providers to share 

information with DSS and the guardian ad litem, (2) maintain monthly contact with 

DSS, (3) submit to random drug screens, (4) complete a global mental health

assessment and comply with all recommendations, (5) complete parenting classes, (6) 

secure safe and stable housing, and (7) maintain legal income. 

¶ 6 On 18 October 2018, DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging the neglect and 

dependency of Kenny, Quentin, and Iris. The petitions alleged respondent-mother 

had failed to address the needs identified in her In-Home Service Agreement, as the 
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

children were not being provided necessary school uniforms and supplies;

respondent-mother lost her job and was still without housing; respondent-mother was 

not scheduling medical and dental appointments for the children; respondent-mother 

failed to attend her scheduled mental health sessions and parenting classes; and 

respondent-mother was left unsupervised with Kenny and Quentin in violation of the 

safety plan. 

¶ 7 Following a hearing on 14 November 2018, the trial court entered an order on 

18 December 2018 that adjudicated Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and 

dependent juveniles. The court ordered that the children remain with their father in 

the home of their paternal grandmother. Respondent-mother was allowed visitation 

supervised by the children’s father or their paternal grandmother. She was required 

to comply with her case plan and attend parenting classes; attend medication 

appointments; transport Iris to school on time; and address the children’s well-being,

needs, and recommended services. 

¶ 8 Before the adjudication order was entered, on 5 December 2018, DSS filed 

additional juvenile petitions, again alleging that Kenny, Quentin, and Iris were

neglected and dependent juveniles. The petitions alleged that during a home visit on 

25 October 2018, a social worker observed a gun lying on the couch in the living room 

where Kenny was playing. It was undetermined whether the gun was loaded, though 

the owner of the gun asserted it was not. The petitions also noted a report to DSS on 
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

3 December 2018 that indicated the children were often seen outside running across 

the road with no parental supervision, respondent-mother was seen outside yelling 

at and physically disciplining Iris, respondent-mother was at risk of being evicted 

from her apartment due to complaints to management, and it was believed 

respondent-mother was with the children unsupervised at the apartment. The 

petitions also alleged respondent-mother remained noncompliant with her case plan 

requirements, noting her failure to complete mental health treatment and parenting 

classes and to schedule medical visits for the children. Further, when a social worker 

arrived at the home to transport the family to a Child and Family Team Meeting, she 

was refused entry to the home, the family did not attend the meeting, and neither 

respondent-mother nor the children’s father contacted the social worker regarding 

the missed meeting. DSS sought and obtained nonsecure custody of the children on 5 

December 2018. 

¶ 9 Following a hearing on 9 January 2019, the trial court entered an order on 21 

February 2019, again adjudicating Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as neglected and 

dependent juveniles. The court ordered custody of the children to remain with DSS. 

Respondent-mother was allowed a minimum of one hour of supervised visitation a 

week, and she was ordered to comply with her case plan, sign releases with her 

service providers, maintain monthly contact with DSS, and submit to random drug 

screens. 
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

¶ 10 Following a permanency-planning hearing on 12 June 2019, the trial court 

entered an order on 11 July 2019 setting the primary permanent plan for Jerry, 

Jimmy, Kenny, Quentin, and Iris as adoption, with a secondary concurrent plan of 

guardianship with a relative or court-approved caretaker. On 6 August 2019, DSS 

filed a termination-of-parental-rights petition for all five children. The grounds 

alleged to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights were (1) her neglect of each 

of the children, (2) her leaving Jerry and Jimmy in foster care or a placement outside 

the home for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to 

correct the conditions that led to their removal, (3) her failure to pay a reasonable 

portion of the cost of care for all five children in the preceding six months, and (4) her 

inability to provide proper care and supervision of all the children rendering them 

dependent juveniles. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3), (6) (2019).

¶ 11 Following a hearing on 1 and 2 July 2020, the trial court entered an order on 

6 August 2020 adjudicating the existence of the grounds alleged in the termination 

petition. The court also concluded that it was in the children’s best interests to 

terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights and ordered that her rights in all five 

children be terminated.3 Respondent-mother appeals. 

¶ 12 Respondent-mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) 

 

3 The parental rights of the children’s fathers—known, putative, and unknown—were 

also terminated. They are not parties to this appeal. 
IN RE J.E.H., J.I.H., K.T.B., Q.D.B., I.T.B.

2021-NCSC-96

Opinion of the Court

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In the brief, counsel identified certain issues 

relating to the adjudication and disposition portions of the termination proceeding 

that could arguably support an appeal, including whether the trial court properly 

found grounds existed for the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights and 

whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that termination of 

respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, but 

explained why he believed the issues lacked merit. Counsel also advised respondentmother of her right to file pro se written arguments on her own behalf and provided 

her with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-mother, however, has not 

submitted any written arguments to this Court.

¶ 13 This Court independently reviews issues identified by counsel in a no-merit 

brief filed pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) to see if the issues have potential merit. In re 

L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). After careful review of the issues identified in the 

no-merit brief in this matter in light of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied 

that the 6 August 2020 order is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence 

and is based on proper legal grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order 

terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.