An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedur e.

NO. COA 14

- 358 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 September 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: Randolph County No s . 12 J T 33

- 36 R.J.C.M., R.J.M., T.M.M., and J.R.M
. , Jr.

Appeal by respondent from order s entered 18 November 2013 and 20 December 2013 by Judge James P. Hill in Randolph County District Court
. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2014
. No brief for petitioner

- appellee Randolph County Department of Social S ervices. Edward Eldred Attorney at Law, PLLC, by Edward Eldred, for respondent

- appellant. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Kari R. Johnson, for guardian ad litem.

HUNTER, Robert C. , Judge.
Respondent, the father of the juveniles R.J.C.M. , R.J.M., T.M.M., and J.R.M. , Jr., appeals from order s terminating his parental rights. After careful review, we affirm. Background- 2

-

On 13 February 2012 , the Randolph County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed petitions alleging that R.J.C.M. , R.J.M., T.M.M ., and J.R.M. , Jr. were neglected and dependent juveniles. DSS stated that respondent and the mother had engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the juveniles; the mother had left the juveniles alone in their home without proper supervision on multiple occasions; and respondent and the mother had cared for the juveniles w hile under the influence of illegal substances. Additionally, on 13 February 2012, the mother was admitted to the hospital due to suicidal ideations. While in the hospital, she tested positive for benzodiazepines, cocaine, marijuana, and methadone. Upon the mother’s admission to the hospital, the juveniles were placed with relatives because respondent admitted to DSS that he could not care for the children. The relatives, however, were unable to care for the juveniles , and neither respondent n or the mot her was able to provide alternative child care arrangem ents for DSS’s consideration. The juveniles were taken into non

- secure custody and were subsequently adjudicated neglected and dependent. On 29 January 2013, the trial court ceased reunification eff orts. On 22 March 201 3 , DSS filed motions to terminate respondent ’ s parental rights. On 18 November 2013 , the trial- 3

-

court entered an adjudicatory order in which it determined that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B

- 1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) (2013) to terminate respondent ’s parental rights. The trial court further concluded that grounds existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights. On 20 December 201 3 , t he trial court entered a dispositional order in which it concluded that it was in th e best interests of the juveniles that respondent ’s and the mother’s parental rights be terminated. The trial court therefore terminated their parental rig hts. Respondent appeal s . Discussion Respondent’ s counsel has filed a no

- merit brief on respondent’s behalf in which he states that he has “ conducted a conscientious and thorough ” review of the record and trial transcript and was “unable to identify any issue s of merit on which to base an argument for relief.” Consequently, counsel conceded that he coul d not in “good faith” argue that the trial court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d), he requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. In accordance w ith Rule 3.1(d), counsel wrote respondent a letter on 28 April 2014 advising h im of counsel’ s- 4
-

inab ility to find error, his filing of a “no

- merit” brief , and of respondent’s right to file h is own arguments directly with this Court within thirty days of the date of the filing of the

no - merit brief. Respondent has not filed his own written arguments. In addition to seeking review pursuant to Rule 3.1(d), counsel directs our attention to potential issues with regard to certain of the trial court’ s conclusions that grounds existed to termina te respondent’s parental rights. However, counsel acknowledges that any one ground is sufficient to terminate respondent’s parental rights. See In re Taylor , 97 N.C. App. 57, 64, 387 S.E.2d 230, 233

- 34 (1990) ( noting that a finding of any one of the separately enumerated grounds is su fficient to support termination ). Counsel concedes that he cannot in good faith argue that all three grounds found by the trial court to support termination of respondent’s parental rights were

erroneous. Conclusion After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial court’ s order s terminating respondent’s parental rights
. Accordi ngly, we affirm.- 5
-

AFFIRMED . Judges DILLON and D AVIS concur . Report per Rule 30(e).