IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 292A19

Filed 5 June 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: C.R.B. and C.P.B.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from order entered on 17 May 

2019 by Judge Scott Etheridge in District Court, Randolph County. This matter was 

calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 18 May 2020 but determined on 

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

Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Chrystal Kay for petitioner-appellee Randolph County Department of Social 

Services.

Winston & Strawn LLP, by Stacie C. Knight, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Vitrano Law Offices, PLLC, by Sean P. Vitrano for respondent-appellant 

mother.

J. Thomas Diepenbrock for respondent-appellant father.

NEWBY, Justice.

Respondents, the mother and father of the minor children C.R.B. (Rose) and 

C.P.B. (Patrick), appeal from the trial court’s 17 May 2019 order terminating their 

parental rights.1 Counsel for respondents have filed no-merit briefs pursuant to 

 

1 The pseudonyms “Rose” and “Patrick” are used to protect the identity of the juveniles 

and for ease of reading.
IN RE C.R.B. AND C.P.B

Opinion of the Court

-2-

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

issues identified by counsel in respondents’ briefs are meritless and therefore affirm 

the trial court’s order.

On 23 May 2017, Randolph County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed 

petitions alleging Rose and Patrick were neglected juveniles. DSS specifically alleged: 

(1) the children had been exposed to substance abuse in the home; (2) the children 

had been exposed to domestic violence between respondents; (3) respondents had 

violated prior safety plans for the children; and (4) respondents had not secured 

necessary mental health treatment for Patrick. The trial court entered an order 

adjudicating Rose and Patrick to be neglected juveniles on 15 December 2017.

By an order entered on 28 January 2019, the trial court set Rose’s primary 

permanent plan as adoption and her secondary permanent plan as reunification with 

respondent-mother. Patrick had initially indicated he did not want to be adopted, but 

later changed his mind. After a hearing on 27 March 2019, the trial court entered an 

order setting his primary permanent plan as adoption and his secondary permanent 

plan as reunification with respondent-mother. DSS filed motions to terminate 

respondents’ parental rights to the children on the grounds of neglect and willful 

failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children’s 

removal from their home. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) (2019). After a hearing on 

4 April 2019, the trial court entered an order on 17 May 2019 terminating 
IN RE C.R.B. AND C.P.B

Opinion of the Court

-3-

respondents’ parental rights based on both grounds alleged in the motions. 

Respondents appealed.

Counsel for respondents have filed no-merit briefs on their clients’ behalf under 

Rule 3.1(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In their briefs, each counsel identified 

three issues that could arguably support an appeal, but also stated why they believed 

each of the issues lacked merit. Counsel have advised respondents of their right to 

file pro se written arguments on their own behalf and provided them with the 

documents necessary to do so. Neither respondent has submitted written arguments 

to this Court.

We carefully and independently review issues identified by counsel in a 

no-merit brief filed pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) in light of the entire record. In re L.E.M., 

372 N.C. 396, 402, 831 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2019). After conducting this review, we are 

satisfied the trial court’s 17 May 2019 order is supported by clear, cogent, and 

convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the 

trial court’s order terminating respondents’ parental rights.

AFFIRMED.