IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA19-619

Filed: 18 August 2020

Orange County, No. 16 JA 61

IN THE MATTER OF: I.K.

Appeal by respondents from order entered 22 March 2019 by Judge Samantha 

Cabe in Orange County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 May 2020.

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

Orange County Department of Social Services.

Batch, Poore & Williams, PC, by Sydney Batch, for respondent-appellant 

mother.

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

father.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., by R. Bruce Thompson II, for Guardian 

ad Litem. 

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Respondent parents appeal from the trial court’s Permanency Planning Order 

establishing a permanent plan of placement for their daughter. For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

This appeal comes after multiple prior proceedings: a 7 November 2017 

Permanency Planning Order regarding minor children I.K. (“Iliana”) and K.M. 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

(“Kevin”),1 which ceased reunification efforts between the children and respondents—

respondent-mother (“Patty”) and respondent-father (“Isaac”) (together 

“respondents”)—and awarded guardianship of both children to their maternal 

grandmother; a 7 August 2018 opinion from this Court vacating the 

7 November 2017 Permanency Planning Order and remanding for further findings to 

address Respondents’ fitness, whether they acted inconsistently with their 

constitutionally protected status, and why reunification efforts should cease as to 

Iliana and Kevin; and a 22 March 2019 Permanency Planning Order (“the Order”).

Respondents timely appeal the Order as to Iliana.

The background of this case is partially incorporated from the text of our 

7 August 2018 opinion, which vacated the 7 November 2017 Permanency Planning 

Order.

Iliana was born to Respondents in December 2012. On 

10 November 2014, the Rockingham County Department 

of Social Services received a report that Respondents lived 

in a “hoarder home” that was unsafe, Respondents sold 

their food stamps, Kevin was small for his age, there was 

fighting in the home, and Respondents were smoking 

marijuana and snorting Percocet. The Rockingham County 

Department of Social Services investigated this report, but 

no services were recommended at the time.

In 2015, the Orange County Department of Social Services 

(“DSS”) received two reports alleging that Patty had 

snorted pills while Kevin was in the home, and that Patty 

and her brother were involved in a domestic dispute that 

 

1 Pseudonyms are used throughout this opinion to protect the identity of juveniles and for the 

ease of reading.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

resulted in the brother shaking and hitting Kevin. At that 

point, Respondents were provided in-home services to 

address concerns of substance use, mental health, and 

domestic violence. On 8 January 2016, Patty was 

sentenced to 45 days in jail for shoplifting and violating her 

probation. Patty received another 45 day[s in jail] in April 

2016 after [she tested positive for cocaine during her 

probation]. At that time, Respondents placed Iliana with 

the maternal grandmother[,] . . . [with whom] Kevin had 

been residing [for the previous five years]. On 

5 August 2016, Patty informed a DSS employee that [she

and Isaac] were being evicted from their home and were 

homeless.

Due to concerns regarding Respondents’ unstable housing, 

substance abuse, and lack of engagement in substance 

abuse treatment services, DSS filed juvenile petitions on 

10 August 2016 alleging that Kevin and Iliana were 

neglected and dependent juveniles. DSS obtained 

nonsecure custody that same day. Following a 

15 September 2016 hearing, the trial court entered an 

order on 13 October 2016 adjudicating the juveniles 

dependent, keeping temporary legal and physical custody 

with the maternal grandmother. The order required 

Respondents to submit to random drug screens, seek 

substance abuse treatment services, and follow any 

treatment recommendations. After a permanency 

planning hearing on 2 March 2017, the trial court entered 

an order on 27 March 2017 establishing a primary 

permanent plan of guardianship with the maternal 

grandmother and a secondary plan of reunification with 

Respondents. Following a 5 October 2017 permanency 

planning hearing, the trial court entered a 

7 November 2017 order ceasing reunification efforts and 

awarding guardianship of the children to the maternal 

grandmother. Respondents timely appealed the

7 November 2017 order.

In re I.K., K.M., 260 N.C. App. 547, 548-49, 818 S.E.2d 359, 361 (2018). Our 

7 August 2018 opinion vacated and remanded the trial court’s 7 November 2017 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

Order for the reasons stated therein and required the trial court to “make the 

required finding that Respondents were unfit or had acted inconsistently with their 

constitutionally protected status as parents . . . in [order to apply] the best interest of 

the child test to determine that guardianship with the maternal grandmother was in 

the children’s best interests.” Id. at 555, 818 S.E.2d at 365.

On 2 November 2018, the trial court again awarded guardianship of Kevin to 

the maternal grandmother, and respondents did not appeal. That same day, the trial 

court continued the permanency planning hearing as to Iliana. The trial court 

conducted a permanency planning hearing on 3 January 2019 and 18 January 2019,

in which it heard further testimony from DSS employees, the maternal grandmother,

and respondents. On 22 March 2019, the trial court entered the present order finding

respondents had acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected right to 

parent Iliana, and again awarding guardianship of Iliana to her maternal 

grandmother.

II. Discussion

Respondents argue that the trial court erred in the Order by: (a) finding that 

respondents acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected right to parent 

Iliana, where such a finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; (b) 

making various findings and conclusions of law required by statute that were not 

supported by competent evidence; (c) making erroneous findings and conclusions of 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

law that did not support its award of guardianship to Iliana’s maternal grandmother 

under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-906.1, -906.2 (2019); and (d) failing to provide 

respondents with notice of their right to file a motion to review the visitation plan 

with the trial court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d) (2019). For the 

following reasons, we find no merit to respondents’ arguments and affirm the Order.

A. Conduct Inconsistent with Constitutionally Protected Parental Status

Respondents argue that clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial 

court’s relevant findings and conclusion of law that they had acted inconsistently with 

their constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana, and the trial court accordingly 

erred by proceeding to place Iliana’s best interest at the forefront of its decision. We 

disagree.

Respondents correctly note that a higher evidentiary standard applies to the 

present circumstances where the trial court has ordered custody with someone other 

than a child’s natural parent as the permanent plan and concluded concurrent 

planning involving reunification with the child’s parents. In re B.G., 197 N.C. App. 

570, 574-75, 677 S.E.2d 549, 552-53 (2009).

A natural parent’s constitutionally protected paramount 

interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of 

his or her child is a counterpart of the parental 

responsibilities the parent has assumed and is based on a 

presumption that he or she will act in the best interest of 

the child. Therefore, the parent may no longer enjoy a 

paramount status if his or her conduct is inconsistent with 

this presumption or if he or she fails to shoulder the 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

responsibilities that are attendant to rearing a child. If a 

natural parent’s conduct has not been inconsistent with his 

or her constitutionally protected status, application of the 

“best interest of the child” standard in a custody dispute 

with a nonparent would offend the Due Process Clause. 

However, conduct inconsistent with the parent’s protected 

status, which need not rise to the statutory level 

warranting termination of parental rights, would result in 

application of the “best interest of the child” test without 

offending the Due Process Clause. Unfitness, neglect, and 

abandonment clearly constitute conduct inconsistent with 

the protected status parents may enjoy. Other types of 

conduct, which must be viewed on a case-by-case basis, can 

also rise to this level so as to be inconsistent with the 

protected status of natural parents. Where such conduct is 

properly found by the trier of fact, based on evidence in the 

record, custody should be determined by the “best interest 

of the child” test mandated by statute.

Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 79, 484 S.E.2d 528, 534-35 (1997) (internal citations 

omitted).

“There is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct amounts to action 

inconsistent with the parent’s constitutionally protected paramount status. Our 

Supreme Court has emphasized the fact-sensitive nature of the inquiry, as well as 

the need to examine each parent’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The court 

must consider both the legal parent’s conduct and his or her intentions vis-à-vis the 

child.” In re A.C., 247 N.C. App. 528, 536, 786 S.E.2d 728, 735 (2016) (alterations, 

internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

Analyzing the totality of the circumstances noted in the Order’s findings of 

fact, for the following reasons we hold that the trial court did not err in determining 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

that respondents acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected status as 

Iliana’s parents.

1. Findings of Fact

In our review of a trial court’s findings relevant to its determination that a 

parent has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status, “[t]he Due 

Process Clause . . . requires that [such findings] must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.” Id. at 533, 786 S.E.2d at 733 (footnote and citation omitted). 

“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that should fully convince. This 

burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally 

applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied 

in criminal matters. Our inquiry as a reviewing court is whether the evidence 

presented is such that a fact-finder applying that evidentiary standard could 

reasonably find the fact in question.” Id. at 533, 786 S.E.2d at 734 (alterations, 

internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

In their separate briefs, respondents argue that numerous findings of fact in 

the Order are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. These findings relate 

to the court’s belief that respondents’ historic issues with unsuitable housing, 

domestic violence, and substance abuse which caused Iliana to be placed with her 

maternal grandmother still persisted and impeded Iliana’s ability to safely return to 

their parental care.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

For example, the trial court found that “[b]oth [respondents] have acted 

inconsistently with their constitutionally-protected right to parent the minor child.”

In support of this finding, the trial court made specific findings regarding the 

respondents’ voluntary placement of Iliana with her maternal grandmother due to 

“[Patty]’s impending incarceration and [Isaac]’s lack of suitable housing and work 

schedule,” the remaining absence of “safe and stable housing appropriate for [Iliana]

in the three (3) years the juvenile has been out of their custody,” and the respondents’ 

continued acts of domestic violence and illegal drug use. Our analysis focuses on 

whether clear and convincing evidence was presented to the trial court on the issues 

of housing, domestic violence, and drug use.

a. Housing

Respondents challenge the trial court’s findings to the effect that respondents 

failed to rectify their housing situation to an extent that Iliana could return to live 

with them. In particular, the trial court found the following: “the home in which 

[respondents] were living . . . was deemed not suitable for [Iliana] when RCDSS 

visited the home in the spring of 2018 and again on 12/12/2018”; “the issues of . . . 

safe . . . housing are still present”; “[respondents] continue to reside with their infant 

daughter and [Iliana’s] paternal grandmother . . . in a two-bedroom single wide 

trailer that has holes in the floor that were recently covered with plywood . . . and 

that has not otherwise been maintained”; “the housing conditions of [respondents] . . . 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

was not safe and appropriate for [Iliana]. Any improvements made between the 

beginning of th[e] hearing and its conclusion are not indicative of the day-to-day 

condition of the home”; “[respondents] continue to reside . . . [in a] home [that] is not 

appropriate at this time for placement of [Iliana]”; and “[respondents] are not making 

adequate progress [and] . . . have not resolved the issues of . . . instable housing that 

led to removal of custody.”

Ample evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the cluttered, 

crowded, dilapidated single-wide trailer in which respondents resided with their 

newborn and Isaac’s mother was an unsafe and unsuitable place for Iliana to dwell. 

Jordan Houchins (“Mr. Houchins”), an investigator with Rockingham County Child 

Protective Services, testified that in the spring of 2018 he visited the trailer and 

observed clutter “piled up literally to the ceiling”, and opined “that [he] would 

consider [this] a hoarding situation[.]” Mr. Houchins also observed structural issues 

with the floors of the small trailer. When Mr. Houchins visited the trailer again in 

December 2018, the same issues remained. Isaac’s mother told Mr. Houchins a child 

could sleep on the pull-out couch in the living room if Iliana lived in the trailer, as a 

child already lived in the trailer with respondents and Isaac’s mother. Mr. Houchins 

testified, consistent with the Adjudication Court Report, that he had concern about 

young children living in a small trailer in that condition. Mr. Houchins noted that a 

child currently resided at the trailer, but expressed concern with another child 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

coming to live at the trailer, in light of the trailer’s size, clutter, condition of the floors, 

and Isaac’s mother’s health and mobility difficulties.

Citing only photographs taken during the proceedings on 3 January 2019 

showing a slight improvement in the clutter and reinforced plywood flooring, 

respondents would have us contravene the trial court’s finding that “the day-to-day 

condition of the home” was presently unsafe. Such a contravention would be an 

improper usurpation of the trial court’s credibility judgment between conflicting 

evidence. These pictures alone, taken after initiation of the instant proceedings once 

it became apparent that unsafe housing was an area of concern for the trial court, are 

insufficient to override the court’s credibility assessment of the evidence before it 

concerning the safety and suitability of respondents’ current housing situation. The 

trial court expressly found the reports and testimony presented by the guardian ad 

litem and social workers assigned to the case more credible than respondents’ 

representations as to recent improvements in the condition of the trailer.

“In a nonjury trial, it is the duty of the trial judge to consider and weigh all of 

the competent evidence, and to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the 

weight to be given their testimony. If different inferences may be drawn from the 

evidence, the trial judge must determine which inferences shall be drawn and which 

shall be rejected.” In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365-66 

(2000) (internal citations omitted). A trial court’s credibility assessments are no basis 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

for relief on appeal in child protection proceedings or otherwise. See In re A.C., 247 

N.C. App. at 550 n.8, 786 S.E.2d at 743 n.8 (citation omitted). Here, the trial court 

acted within its discretion in finding the testimony and reports of the guardian ad 

litem and social workers who had visited the home more credible on the issue of the 

trailer’s current condition than a few photographs taken during the proceedings.

While we may presume that respondents will not remove the reinforced 

plywood flooring at the termination of these proceedings, the trial court possessed 

clear and convincing evidence that the remaining issues identified with the trailer 

related to clutter, living space, and other structural issues remained impediments to 

Iliana’s safe placement within the dwelling. When coupled with the trial court’s 

uncontested finding that “[r]espondent parents indicate they plan to reside with [the 

paternal grandmother] in the future despite the ongoing concerns about the safety 

and appropriateness of the condition of the home[,]” the trial court appropriately 

found that respondents’ failure to furnish safe and suitable housing for Iliana bore 

upon whether their conduct was inconsistent with their constitutionally protected 

parental rights.

b. Domestic Violence

Respondents also challenge the Order’s findings to the effect that respondents 

have failed to rectify their issues with domestic violence to an extent that Iliana could 

return to live with them. In particular, the trial court found the following:
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

“[respondents] continue to engage in domestic violence . . . despite their completion

of treatment and classes”; “the issues of . . . domestic violence . . . are still present 

despite numerous services that have been offered to the family”; “[t]here has not been 

another identified domestic violence incident between Respondent parents, however 

there has been domestic violence in the home between [Isaac] and his mother”; “[t]he 

issues that led to removal of custody, to wit, . . . domestic violence, . . . have not been 

resolved.”

These findings of fact are erroneous as to Patty. The trial court considered 

evidence that she regularly participated in counseling regarding domestic violence 

and had not been involved in a domestic violence incident with Isaac since October of 

2016. There was no other evidence indicating Patty’s past issues with domestic 

violence persisted.

However, these findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence 

as to Isaac. The trial court’s remaining unchallenged findings of fact establishing 

respondents’ extensive history of domestic violence issues, when coupled with 

evidence of the most recent domestic disturbance Isaac had with his mother in the 

same trailer in which he wishes Iliana to reside, support its ultimate finding that he

has not resolved his issues with domestic violence to an extent necessary to safely 

place Iliana in his custody.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

Emily Wise (“Ms. Wise”), the DSS “assigned social worker for [Iliana],” testified 

concerning the respondents’ extensive history of domestic violence, which she also 

detailed in the Adjudication Court Report. In particular, Isaac was convicted of 

misdemeanor assault on a female as a result of an incident between Patty and him 

in October 2016.

The Order mischaracterizes the most recent domestic incident as one involving 

actual physical violence. In fact, the evidence shows that police were called to the 

residence on 23 August 2018 to respond to reports of a loud verbal disagreement. 

However, the OCDSS report characterizes the incident as more than just a simple 

argument. Rather, Isaac was reportedly being “verbally aggressive . . . and was 

‘tearing up’ the [trailer].” This evidence certainly does not refute the court’s 

continuing concern.

While a trial court may not solely “rely on prior events to find [facts relevant 

to the current state of matters in issue at a permanency planning hearing], it may 

certainly consider facts at issue in light of prior events.” In re A.C., 247 N.C. App. at

535, 786 S.E.2d at 735 (citing Cantrell v. Wishon, 141 N.C. App. 340, 344, 540 S.E.2d 

804, 806-807 (2000) (“[T]he trial court erroneously placed no emphasis on the 

mother’s past behavior, however inconsistent with her rights and responsibilities as 

a parent[;] . . . failed to consider the long-term relationship between the mother and 

her children; . . . and failed to make findings on the mother’s role in building the 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

relationship between her children and the [nonparent custodians].”)). In light of the 

trial court’s detailed, unchallenged findings establishing Isaac’s extensive history of 

domestic violence and reluctance to complete perpetrator programs except as 

mandated by the court, the trial court acted within its discretion in characterizing 

his most recent outburst as an indication that his issues with domestic violence have 

not been resolved to the extent necessary to place Iliana in his care.

c. Substance Abuse

Finally, respondents challenge the trial court’s findings to the effect that 

respondents have failed to rectify their issues with substance abuse to an extent that 

Iliana could return to live with them. In particular, the trial court found the 

following: “[respondents] continue to engage in . . . illegal drug use despite their 

completion of treatment and classes”; “the issues of substance use . . . and safe, 

substance-free housing are still present despite numerous services that have been 

offered to the family”; “[respondents] continue to use marijuana despite substance 

abuse treatment. [Patty] has sought prescription painkillers from her mother on 

more than one occasion while [Iliana] has been placed out of the home”; and 

“[respondents] are not making adequate progress . . . [and] have not resolved the 

issue[] of substance abuse . . . that led to removal of custody.”

Clear and convincing evidence supported these findings of fact as to both 

respondents. The trial court considered evidence that respondents completed 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

substance abuse treatment on 16 March 2018. Respondents provided hair follicles 

for a drug screen, and the screen of both respondents on 4 September 2018 indicated 

marijuana use. The trial court was also presented with evidence of Patty’s continued

drug seeking behavior after the 7 November 2017 Permanency Planning Order.

Ms. Wise testified that Patty had engaged in drug seeking behavior after the 

appeal and remand of the 7 November 2017 Order. Specifically, Patty texted “her 

mother . . . requesting pain medications on several occasions,” including a text 

message asking “Do you have a couple of pills I can get?” on 10 June 2018, as well as 

a text message on 10 August 2018 requesting pain medication. Patty’s drug seeking 

behavior is supportive of the trial court’s findings of Patty’s continued drug use.

The trial court heard evidence that Isaac completed his substance abuse 

treatment program in March of 2018 and has since tested positive for marijuana on 

the same day as Patty and exchanged text messages with her seeking to purchase 

marijuana. Therefore the court had clear and convincing evidence before it that, 

viewed in light of Isaac’s extensive history of substance abuse recognized by the 

majority, there was legitimate cause to question whether he had overcome this 

problem such that Iliana could be safely placed within his home. The trial court also 

found that he intended to continue residing indefinitely with Patty, who continues to 

exhibit drug-seeking behavior, in the very trailer where they were previously known 

to snort pills and consume other impairing substances together in front of their 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

children. We therefore uphold the trial court’s findings of fact to the effect that 

respondents have not overcome their substance abuse issues to its satisfaction in 

deciding whether placement of Iliana in their home would be appropriate.

2. Conclusion of Law

The order’s aforementioned findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion 

of law that respondents’ conduct was inconsistent with their constitutionally 

protected right to parent Iliana. Clear and convincing evidence supported the Order’s 

findings that recent incidents raised serious concerns about their progress in 

resolving their chronic issues related to unsafe housing, domestic violence, and 

substance abuse that had precipitated the circumstances in which Iliana was 

adjudicated dependent and placed with her maternal grandmother in 2014. When 

considered in light of the order’s undisputed findings establishing respondents’

extensive history as to each of these chronic issues and their detrimental effect on 

Iliana, we uphold the trial court’s determination that the totality of circumstances 

relevant to their conduct was inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status 

as Iliana’s parents. Having overcome this constitutional threshold, the trial court 

appropriately placed Iliana’s best interest at the forefront of its decision to grant 

guardianship to her grandmother as the permanent plan.

B. Analysis Under the Statutory Standard for Permanency Planning
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

Respondents make the same evidentiary challenges to the trial court’s findings 

of fact in arguing that they fail to satisfy the statutory requirements applicable to an 

order granting guardianship to a nonparent as the permanent plan over a parent’s 

objections. In essence, they contend that competent evidence does not support the 

trial court’s findings that they have failed to resolve the issues of domestic violence, 

substance abuse, and instable housing that lead to Iliana’s placement with her 

grandmother three years prior. Having already determined that these findings of 

fact clear the higher constitutional bar imposed by the Due Process Clause, we hold 

that the trial court heard competent evidence to support these findings.

In turn, these findings support the statutorily required ultimate findings of 

fact and the order’s conclusions of law with which respondents take issue. “In 

choosing an appropriate permanent plan under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1 (2013), the 

juvenile’s best interests are paramount. We review a trial court’s determination as 

to the best interest of the child for an abuse of discretion.” In re A.C., 247 N.C. App.

at 532-33, 786 S.E.2d at 733 (citation omitted). “Abuse of discretion results where 

the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could 

not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re T.H., __ N.C. App. __, __, 832 

S.E.2d 162, 164 (2019) (quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 

527 (1988)).
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 18 -

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(d), the trial court held that efforts to 

reunite Iliana with her parents would be unsuccessful or inconsistent with her health, 

safety, and need for a safe and permanent home within a reasonable period of time.2 

This conclusion rested upon its determination that “[t]he issues that lead to removal 

of custody . . . have not been resolved.” Per N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(e), the trial 

court also held that it was not possible to place Iliana with her parents within the 

next six months and doing so was not in her best interest. This conclusion was based 

upon its continuing concerns with the issues leading to State involvement and 

respondents’ plan to continue residing in the trailer deemed inappropriate for Iliana’s 

placement. For the same reasons, the trial court held that respondents demonstrated 

a lack of success by not making adequate progress under the secondary plan of 

reunification and acting in a manner inconsistent with the health or safety of Iliana, 

pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d).

The trial court’s ultimate findings on each of these matters find ample support 

in its findings of fact discussed supra regarding the trial court’s continuing concerns 

with respondents’ domestic violence, substance abuse, and inadequate housing. 

These ultimate findings in turn support its conclusion that “[t]he best plan of care to 

achieve a safe, permanent home for [Iliana] within a reasonable period of time is 

implementation of the primary plan of guardianship to . . . [her] maternal 

 

2 The trial court made findings of fact speaking to all the requisite criteria in N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§§ 7B-906.1, -906.2. We address only those challenged by respondents.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 19 -

grandmother[,]” and that such placement would be in her best interest. The court’s 

decision is not manifestly unsupported by reason. Therefore, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in its permanency planning order granting guardianship of Iliana 

to her grandmother.

C. Visitation Plan

Respondents respectively challenge the visitation plan within the Order on 

separate grounds. We find no merit in either argument.

1. Parameters of Visitation Plan

Patty challenges the trial court’s visitation order, which limited her to “a 

minimum of one hour per week of supervised visitation [with Iliana].” “This Court

reviews the trial court’s dispositional orders of visitation for an abuse of discretion.” 

In re C.S.L.B., 254 N.C. App. 395, 399, 829 S.E.2d 492, 495 (2017) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Patty’s arguments center on whether visitation should 

be unsupervised, and she contends the trial court lacked competent evidence to order 

visitation supervised by Iliana’s maternal grandmother.

According to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(c) (2019),

If the juvenile is placed or continued in the custody or 

guardianship of a relative or other suitable person, any 

order providing for visitation shall specify the minimum 

frequency and length of the visits and whether the visits 

shall be supervised. The court may authorize additional 

visitation as agreed upon by the respondent and custodian 

or guardian.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 20 -

The trial court ordered that “Respondent[s] shall have a minimum of one hour 

per week of supervised visitation. The guardian has the authority and discretion to 

allow additional visitation.” The trial court’s order complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 

7B-905(c). The trial court also heard testimony that respondents’ unsupervised 

visitation had previously been rescinded due to separate instances of visitation where 

respondents “appeared to be under the influence.” Iliana’s guardian ad litem

recommended supervised visitation. Iliana’s therapist’s letter also described 

concerns with changing the juvenile’s routine, and that current treatment involved 

“the use of structure and predictability” to increase Iliana’s ability to “accept care and 

feel settled and soothed by an adult caregiver as well as increasing [Iliana’s] trust in 

adults to take care of her needs.” The trial court’s order for supervised visitation as 

to Patty is not manifestly unsupported by reason, and the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion.

2. Notice of Right to File Motion to Review Visitation Plan

Finally, Isaac argues that the trial court failed to provide him with notice of 

his right to file a motion with the court to review the visitation plan established in 

the Order, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d). We find no merit in this 

argument and otherwise deem any purported error harmless.

“If the court retains jurisdiction” in its dispositional order in a permanency 

planning case, “all parties shall be informed of the right to file a motion for review of 
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 21 -

any visitation plan entered pursuant to this section.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d). 

Here, in open court the trial court made the parties aware in a general sense that it 

would retain continuing jurisdiction and could review any aspect of its permanency 

planning order upon its own motion or that of a party: “[B]ecause [Iliana] has been 

placed with her grandmother . . . if something changes at some point, the motions can 

be made back to this Court if changes need to be made.” Furthermore, in its written 

order the court noted that “[a]ll parties are aware that the matter may be brought 

before the Court for review at any time by the filing of a motion for review or on the 

Court’s own motion” and “Juvenile Court jurisdiction shall continue.”

Assuming arguendo Isaac’s position that the trial court was required to 

explicitly reference the parties’ right of review under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d), 

any such error was harmless. Isaac has not pointed to any right lost or prejudiced by 

the trial court’s failure to timely provide such notice. Moreover, Isaac’s mere 

assignment of error on this issue indicates that he has since become aware of his right 

of review under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1(d). We otherwise find no merit in his 

argument that any purported inadequacy of the notice provided amounts to reversible 

error.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s permanency planning order.

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: I.K

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Judge INMAN concurs.

Judge Murphy concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion.
No. COA19-619 – In re I.K.

MURPHY, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The Majority determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the 

findings relevant to the trial court’s determination that Patty and Isaac acted 

inconsistently with their constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana. 

Specifically, the Majority held that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial 

court’s findings that Patty and Isaac had failed to resolve issues with housing, 

domestic violence, and drug abuse to an extent they could reunite with Iliana. I agree 

that competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Patty had not 

resolved one of those issues—drug abuse—and so would affirm the Order’s finding 

and conclusion concerning Patty acting inconsistently with her constitutionally 

protected right to parent Iliana. I also agree with the Majority that “the trial court’s 

order for supervised visitation as to Patty is not manifestly unsupported by reason, 

and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.” However, no competent evidence was 

presented to the trial court as to Isaac on the issues of housing, domestic violence, 

and drug abuse, and I would accordingly reverse as to Isaac. I respectfully dissent.

ANALYSIS

A. Challenged Findings in the 22 March 2019 Permanency Planning Order

In their separate briefs, Patty and Isaac challenged the following Findings of 

Fact in the Order:

26. Both [Patty] and [Isaac] have acted inconsistently 

with their constitutionally-protected right to parent 

[Iliana]. Specifically, this court finds as follows: 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

2

a. [Patty and Isaac] voluntarily placed [Iliana] 

with her maternal grandmother on [26] April 

[] 2016 because of [Patty]'s impending 

incarceration and [Isaac]'s lack of suitable 

housing and work schedule. 

b. [Patty and Isaac] have not obtained safe and 

stable housing appropriate for [Iliana] in the 

three (3) years [Iliana] has been out of their 

custody. Though the home in which they were 

living was found to have met minimum 

standards by RCDSS on two visits between [2] 

March [] 2017 and [5] October [] 2017, the 

home was deemed not suitable for [Iliana] 

when RCDSS visited the home in the spring 

of 2018 and again on [12 December 2018]. 

c. [Patty and Isaac] continue to engage in 

domestic violence and illegal drug use despite 

their completion of treatment and classes. 

27. When this hearing began on [3] January [] 2019, 

[Patty and Isaac] were still residing with [Isaac]'s 

mother in a home that Rockingham County DSS 

deemed unsuitable for the children as late as [12] 

December [] 2018. 

28. [Patty and Isaac] have made some limited progress 

to remedy conditions that led to [Iliana] being 

removed from their home. However, the issues of 

substance use, domestic violence, and safe, 

substance-free housing are still present despite 

numerous services that have been offered to the 

family since the issues were first identified in 2014.

. . .

30. [Patty] concluded a domestic violence support group 

at the Compass Center in May 2017. [Isaac] 

completed a domestic violence perpetrator program 

at Alamance County DV Prevention in February 

2018. There has not been another identified 

domestic violence incident between [Patty and 

Isaac], however there has been domestic violence in 

the home between [Isaac] and his mother[.]
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

3

. . .

34. Despite [Isaac] earning a gross income of $46,349.00 

per year in a job he has maintained for l0 years and 

[Isaac’s mother] paying a portion of the household 

expenses, [Patty and Isaac] continue to reside with 

their infant daughter and [Isaac’s mother] with 

whom they moved after eviction in 2016 in a twobedroom single wide trailer that has holes in the 

floor that were recently covered with plywood at the 

request of RCDSS, and that has not otherwise been 

maintained.

. . .

37. At the continuation of this hearing on [18] January 

[] 2019, [Patty and Isaac] provided photographs of 

the home that showed somewhat improved 

conditions from the conditions reflected in the 

photographs and testimony presented on [3] 

January [] 2019. [Patty] testified that the new 

photos were taken after the [3] January [] 2019 

beginning of the hearing. The court finds the 

testimony and documentation of Rockingham 

County DSS to be credible, and that the housing 

conditions of [Patty and Isaac] as of [12] December [] 

2018 was not safe and appropriate for the minor 

child. Any improvements made between the 

beginning of this hearing and its conclusion are not 

indicative of the day-to-day condition of the home.

. . .

40. The following are relevant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 

7B-906.1(d): . . .

c. Efforts to reunite [Iliana] with either [Patty 

or Isaac] would be unsuccessful or 

inconsistent with [Iliana’s] health or safety 

and need for a safe, permanent home within a 

reasonable period of time. The issues that led 

to removal of custody, to wit, substance abuse, 

domestic violence, and housing, have not been 

resolved. [Iliana] has resided with her 

maternal grandmother for over half of her life.
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

4

41. The Court finds, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(e), 

it is not possible for [Iliana] to be returned home or 

placed with Respondent[s] within the next six 

months. Placement with Respondent[s] is not in 

[Iliana’s] best interest. In support of this ultimate 

finding of fact, the court specifically finds the 

following3: 

. . .

b. [Patty and Isaac] have been involved 

with the Department since October 

2015 due to concerns about substance 

use, domestic violence, and unstable 

housing, and had involvement with 

Rockingham County DSS in 2014 

regarding the same issues that remain 

unresolved in 2019. 

c. [Patty and Isaac] continue to use 

marijuana despite substance abuse 

treatment. [Patty] has sought 

prescription painkillers from her 

mother on more than one occasion 

while [Iliana] has been placed out of the 

home.

d. [Patty and Isaac] continue to reside 

with [Isaac’s mother]. This home is not 

appropriate at this time for placement 

of [Iliana].

b. Placement with [Patty] or [Isaac] is unlikely 

within six months, and: 

i. Legal guardianship or custody with a 

relative should be established. [Patty 

and Isaac] should retain the right of 

visitation and the responsibility of

providing financial support to [Iliana] 

by paying regular child support. 

ii. Adoption should not be pursued. 

iii. [Iliana] should remain in the current 

 

3 The tabbing and inclusion of the first “b.,” “c.,” and “d.” before the second “b.”, etc., appears 

in the Order in the Record. 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

5

placement because it is meeting her 

needs and in her best interests. 

iv. Due to the history of the case and 

relationship between [respondents] 

and [the maternal grandmother], the 

guardian ad litem recommends 

guardianship to [the maternal 

grandmother] in [Iliana’s] best 

interest. 

c. Since the initial permanency planning 

hearing, OCDSS has made reasonable efforts 

to finalize [Iliana’s] permanent plans as laid 

out below.

. . .

43. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(d), the following 

demonstrate a lack of success: 

a. [Patty and Isaac] are not making adequate 

progress within a reasonable period of time 

under the secondary plan of reunification. 

They have not resolved the issues of 

substance abuse and instable housing that led 

to removal of custody. 

b. [Patty and Isaac] have partially participated 

in or cooperated with the plan, the 

department, and [Iliana’s] Guardian ad 

Litem.

. . .

d. [Patty and Isaac] have acted in a manner 

inconsistent with the health or safety of 

[Iliana] as set forth herein.

44. The best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent 

home for [Iliana] within a reasonable period of time 

is implementation of the primary plan of 

guardianship to a relative, specifically to [the 

maternal grandmother].

. . .

57. The Court finds pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(n): 

. . . 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

6

b. The placement is stable, and continuation of 

the placement is in her best interest.

In their separate briefs, Patty and Isaac challenged the following Conclusions 

of Law in the Order:

2. It is in the best interest of [Iliana] that guardianship 

be granted to [the maternal grandmother].

. . .

4. Implementation of guardianship as a permanent 

plan for [Iliana] is made within the time prescribed 

by law, is appropriate and is in [Iliana’s] best 

interest. 

. . .

6. [Patty and Isaac] have acted inconsistently with 

their protected status. 

7. [The maternal grandmother] is a fit and proper 

person to have guardianship of [Iliana] and that it is 

in the best interest of [Iliana] that guardianship be 

granted to and continued with [Iliana’s maternal 

grandmother]. 

8. It is in the best interest of [Iliana] to have supervised 

visitation with [Patty and Isaac] once per week 

pursuant to the schedule that [Patty and Isaac] and 

caretaker have been following for the last several 

months.

B. Standard of Review

“Appellate review of a permanency planning order is limited to whether there 

is competent evidence in the [R]ecord to support the findings and [whether] the 

findings support the conclusions of law.” In re S.J.M., 184 N.C. App. 42, 47, 645 

S.E.2d 798, 801 (2007), aff’d, 362 N.C. 230, 657 S.E.2d 354 (2008). Further, “[t]he 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

7

findings of fact by the trial court in a nonjury trial have the force and effect of a jury 

verdict and are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence, even 

if the evidence could sustain contrary findings.” In re Norris, 65 N.C. App. 269, 275, 

310 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1983). “When the trial court is the trier of fact, the court is 

empowered to assign weight to the evidence presented at the trial as it deems 

appropriate. In this situation, the trial judge acts as both judge and jury, thus 

resolving any conflicts in the evidence.” In re Oghenekevebe, 123 N.C. App. 434, 439, 

473 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1996) (internal citations omitted).

“[T]he . . . right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and 

control of their children[]” is fundamental. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 147 

L.Ed.2d 49, 57 (2000). “A natural parent’s constitutionally protected paramount 

interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of his or her child is a 

counterpart of the parental responsibilities the parent has assumed and is based on 

a presumption that he or she will act in the best interest of the child.” Price v. 

Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 79, 484 S.E.2d 528, 534 (1997) (citations omitted). “[A] natural 

parent may lose his constitutionally protected right to the control of his children in 

one of two ways: (1) by a finding of unfitness of the natural parent, or (2) where the 

natural parent’s conduct is inconsistent with his . . . constitutionally protected 

status.” In re D.M., 211 N.C. App. 382, 385, 712 S.E.2d 355, 357 (2011) (quoting 

David N. v. Jason N., 359 N.C. 303, 307, 608 S.E.2d 751, 753 (2005)). 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

8

We review “the trial court’s conclusions that [a parent] has acted in a manner 

inconsistent with her constitutionally protected paramount status . . . de novo.” In re 

A.C., 247 N.C. App. 528, 535, 786 S.E.2d 728, 735 (2016) (internal marks omitted). 

“[A] trial court’s determination that a parent’s conduct is inconsistent with his or her 

constitutionally protected status must be supported by clear and convincing 

evidence.” Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57, 63, 550 S.E.2d 499, 503 (2001). “There is 

no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct amounts to action inconsistent with 

the parent’s constitutionally protected paramount status. Our Supreme Court has 

emphasized the fact-sensitive nature of the inquiry, as well as the need to examine 

each parent’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis.” In re A.C., 247 N.C. App. at 

536, 786 S.E.2d at 735 (internal marks and citations omitted).

“[T]o apply the best interest of the child test in a custody dispute between a 

parent and a nonparent, a trial court must find that the natural parent is unfit or 

that his or her conduct is inconsistent with a parent’s constitutionally protected 

status.” In re B.G., 197 N.C. App. 570, 574, 677 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2009) (citations 

omitted). Upon a proper finding of unfitness or actions inconsistent with the parent’s 

constitutionally protected status, the trial court determines the best interest of the 

child. Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 403-04, 445 S.E.2d 901, 905 (1994). When 

determining the appropriate permanent plan according to N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1, “the 

trial court should consider the parents’ right to maintain their family unit, but if the 

interest of the parent conflicts with the welfare of the child, the latter should prevail. 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

9

Thus, in this context, the child’s best interests are paramount, not the rights of the 

parent.” In re T.K., 171 N.C. App. 35, 39, 613, S.E.2d 739, 741, aff’d per curiam, 360 

N.C. 163, 622 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (citations and quotations omitted). “The court’s 

determination of the juvenile’s best interest will not be disturbed absent a showing 

of an abuse of discretion.” In re T.H., 832 S.E.2d 162, 164 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019) 

(quoting In re E.M., 202 N.C. App. 761, 764, 692 S.E.2d 629, 630 (2010)); see also In 

re D.S.A., 181 N.C. App. 715, 720, 641 S.E.2d 18, 22 (2007). “Abuse of discretion 

results where the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary 

that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re T.H., 832 S.E.2d 

at 164 (quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)).

C. Findings of Inconsistent Action with Constitutionally Protected Status 

on Remand

We vacated the 7 November 2017 Permanency Planning Order because the 

trial court failed to make the required finding that respondents were unfit or had 

acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected status as parents. See In re 

I.K., 260 N.C. App. 547, 550, 818 S.E.2d 359, 362 (2018). We held that, absent such 

a finding, the trial court erred in reaching a best interest of the child analysis to 

determine that guardianship with the maternal grandmother was in the best interest 

of Iliana and Kevin. Id. Our opinion focused on the absence of a necessary finding, 

Id. at 550, 555, 818 S.E.2d at 362, 365, and accordingly the bulk of my analysis in 

this Dissent focuses on the trial court’s findings, and whether they were supported 

by competent evidence. Patty and Isaac only appeal the Order as to Iliana, not as to 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

10

Kevin, and I examine the trial court’s findings and conclusions of law as to Iliana 

only.

The Order made the findings required by our opinion remanding the 7 

November 2017 Permanency Planning Order. In particular, the trial court included 

Finding of Fact 26 in the Order, finding that “[b]oth [Patty and Isaac] have acted 

inconsistently with their constitutionally-protected right to parent the minor child.” 

In support of Finding of Fact 26, the trial court made specific findings regarding 

respondents’ voluntary placement of Iliana with her maternal grandmother due to 

“[Patty]’s impending incarceration and [Isaac]’s lack of suitable housing and work 

schedule,” the remaining absence of “safe and stable housing appropriate for [Iliana] 

in the three (3) years [Iliana] has been out of [respondents’] custody,” and the 

respondents’ continued acts of domestic violence and illegal drug use. My analysis 

focuses on whether competent evidence was presented to the trial court on the issues 

of housing, domestic violence, and drug use. The Order also concluded as a matter of 

law that “[respondents] have acted inconsistently with their protected status.” 

The Order classifies its findings to comply with the requirements stated in our 

7 August 2018 Order remanding the 7 November 2017 Permanency Planning Order 

for further findings of unfitness or inconsistent action with respondents’ 

constitutionally protected status as parents. However, I note that several findings 

categorized as findings of fact were, at least partially, conclusions of law. See In re 

Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997) (internal citations and 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

11

alterations omitted) (holding that “any determination requiring the exercise of 

judgment, or the application of legal principles is more properly classified a 

conclusion of law”); see also Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 73-74, 326 S.E.2d 863, 869-70 

(1985). The trial court’s classification of its own determination as a finding or 

conclusion does not govern this court’s analysis. See State v. Icard, 363 N.C. 303, 308, 

677 S.E.2d 822, 826 (2009); State v. Burns, 287 N.C. 102, 110, 214 S.E.2d 56, 61-62 

(1975). 

Specifically, the trial court’s Findings of Fact 40(c), 41(b), and 43 in the Order

actually amount to conclusions of law, inasmuch as they declare the following: 

whether “[e]fforts to reunite [Iliana] with either [Patty or Isaac] would be 

unsuccessful or inconsistent with [Iliana’s] health or safety and need for a safe, 

permanent home within a reasonable period of time” under N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(d); 

that “[p]lacement with [respondents] is unlikely within six months” under N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-906.1(e); and the inadequacy of respondents’ progress, participation, and 

cooperation in the reunification plan, including actions regarding “the health or 

safety of [Iliana],” under N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(d). 

While the trial court made findings on remand to comply with the 

requirements of our 7 August 2018 opinion, I treat the portions of Findings 40(c), 

41(b), and 43 requiring exercise of judgment or application of legal principles as 

conclusions of law and apply the appropriate de novo standard of review. See Icard, 

363 N.C. at 308, 677 S.E.2d at 826 (“While we give appropriate deference to the 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

12

portions of [the relevant findings] that are findings of fact, we review de novo the 

portions of those findings that are conclusions of law.”).

The trial court made findings regarding respondents’ issues with housing, 

domestic violence, and drug abuse, and used those findings to support its finding that 

they acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana. 

The Majority addressed the issues of housing, domestic violence, and drug abuse in 

that order. Accordingly, I analyze each of those issues as they relate to respondents 

in the same order as the Majority.

D. Challenged Findings of Fact

1. Housing

On appeal, respondents challenge the trial court’s Findings of Fact 26(b), 27, 

28, 34, 37, 40(c), 41(d), 43(a), and 44, which find that respondents failed to rectify 

their housing situation to an extent that Iliana could return to live with them. In 

particular, the trial court found the following: “the home in which [respondents] were 

living . . . was deemed not suitable for [Iliana]”; the home was “deemed unsuitable for 

the children”; “the issues of . . . safe . . . housing are still present”; “[respondents] 

continue to reside . . . in a two-bedroom single wide trailer that has holes in the floor 

that were recently covered with plywood . . . and that has not otherwise been 

maintained”; “the housing conditions of [respondents] . . . was not safe and 

appropriate for [Iliana]. Any improvements made between the beginning of this 

hearing and its conclusion are not indicative of the day-to-day condition of the 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

13

home[]”; “[t]he issues that led to removal of custody, to wit, . . . housing, have not been 

resolved[]”; “[respondents] continue to reside . . . [in a] home [that] is not appropriate 

at this time for placement of [Iliana]”; “[respondents] are not making adequate 

progress [and] . . . have not resolved the issues of . . . instable housing that led to 

removal of custody[]”; and “[t]he best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent home 

for [Iliana] within a reasonable period of time is . . . to [place Iliana with] maternal 

grandmother.” 

Jordan Houchins (“Houchins”), an investigator with Rockingham County Child 

Protective Services, testified that, in the spring of 2018, he visited Isaac’s mother’s 

home, where respondents lived, and observed clutter “piled up literally to the ceiling.” 

Houchins also observed structural issues with the floors of the small trailer. When 

Houchins visited the trailer again in December 2018, the same issues remained. 

Isaac’s mother told Houchins a child could sleep on the pull-out couch in the living 

room if Iliana lived in the trailer, as a child already lived in the trailer with her, Patty, 

and Isaac. Houchins testified, consistent with the Adjudication Court Report, that 

he had concern about young children living in a small trailer in that condition. 

Houchins noted that a child currently resided at the trailer, but expressed concern 

with another child coming to live at the trailer, in light of the trailer’s size, clutter, 

condition of the floors, and Isaac’s mother’s health and mobility difficulties. 

However, competent evidence did not support the findings of fact concerning 

respondents’ current housing situation. I disagree with the Majority’s analysis of this 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

14

issue, particularly its view that we would usurp the trial court’s role in making a 

credibility determination between conflicting evidence by contravening the finding of 

unsafe day-to-day housing conditions in light of the photographs provided by 

respondents showing their housing situation had clearly changed. The trial court did 

not merely consider evidence that, in October 2017, respondents’ housing situation 

had somewhat stabilized, or that “Rockingham County DSS [] visited [Isaac’s 

mother’s] home . . . and determined that it [met] minimum standards.” Importantly, 

respondents provided pictures of floor reinforcements to that home at the 18 January 

2019 hearing. Specifically, pictures 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 show sheets of plywood on 

the floor and are evidence that respondents improved the floors of the residence to 

improve the flooring problems described by Houchins. Pictures 1-9 show two 

bedrooms, a dining room, and a kitchen; each space is small and cluttered, but space 

is visible on the floors, beds, dresser, counter tops, table, and stove. These pictures 

contradicted the trial court’s finding concerning “the day-to-day condition of the 

home,” particularly that respondents resided in “housing conditions . . . not safe and 

appropriate for [Iliana],” as well as the conclusions that the “extremely cluttered . . . 

ho[a]rding” observed in the spring of 2018 and on 12 December 2018 and lack of space 

in the trailer continued. The pictures respondents provided of floor reinforcements 

at the 18 January 2019 hearing contradicted the trial court’s finding that “the dayto-day condition of the home” continued to be unsafe, as the pictures did not show the 

holes in the floor, the hoarding observed in the spring of 2018 and 12 December 2018, 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

15

or the continuation of a lack of space in the trailer. These pictures provided objective 

proof of a change in circumstance as to respondents’ housing, making the trial court’s 

finding of fact incorrect. Instead of a credibility determination weighing the 

believability of contradictory evidence, the trial court’s finding regarding 

respondents’ housing situation disregarded objective facts established by 

photographic evidence.

Competent evidence did not support the trial court’s findings that respondents’ 

housing situation continued to be unsafe and too small for Iliana, which the trial court 

used to support its finding that respondents acted inconsistently with their 

constitutionally protected status as parents. In light of that lack of competent 

evidence to support the trial court’s findings regarding respondents’ housing, I would 

set aside Findings of Fact 26(b), 27, 28, 34, 37, 40(c), 41(d), 43(a), and 44 to the extent 

they find respondents had failed to rectify their housing situation to an extent that 

Iliana could not return to live with them.

2. Domestic Violence

On appeal, respondents challenge the trial court’s Findings of Fact 26(c), 28, 

30, 40, 41(b), and 44, which find that respondents had failed to rectify their issues 

with domestic violence to an extent that Iliana could return to live with them. In 

particular, the trial court found the following: “[respondents] continue to engage in 

domestic violence . . . despite their completion of treatment and classes[]”; “the issues 

of . . . domestic violence . . . are still present [with respondents] despite numerous 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

16

services that have been offered to the family[]”; “[t]here has not been another 

identified domestic violence incident between [respondents], however there has been 

domestic violence in the home between [Isaac] and his mother”; “[t]he issues that led 

to removal of custody, to wit, . . . domestic violence, . . . have not been resolved[]”; 

“[respondents] have been involved with the Department since October 2015 due to 

concerns about . . . domestic violence, . . . and . . . the same issues . . . remain 

unresolved in 2019[]”; and “[t]he best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent home 

for [Iliana] within a reasonable period of time is . . . to [place Iliana with] maternal 

grandmother.” 

Emily Wise (“Wise”), the DSS “assigned social worker for [Iliana,]” testified 

concerning respondents’ history of domestic violence, which she also detailed in the 

Adjudication Court Report. In particular, Isaac was convicted of misdemeanor 

assault on a female as a result of an incident between Patty and him in October 2016. 

Wise also testified, to her knowledge, no additional domestic violence incidents had 

occurred between respondents since October 2016. She testified that police had been 

called to a domestic disturbance at Isaac’s mother’s house on 23 August 2018. Isaac 

testified that he was yelling at his mother during the incident, and Isaac’s mother 

“reported it had been a family disagreement.” “There were no criminal charges 

related to” the 23 August 2018 incident. 

Competent evidence did not support the trial court’s findings of fact concerning 

respondents’ issues with domestic violence listed above. No known additional 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

17

domestic violence incidents have occurred between respondents since October 2016. 

While the trial court found that domestic violence has occurred between Isaac and 

his mother in the home respondents live in, the evidence in the Record does not 

support that violence actually occurred. In fact, the only evidence before the court 

described the incident as an argument, not as a violent or physical confrontation. I 

would not speculate about the hyperbolic statements in a 911 call log that Isaac was 

“‘tearing up’ the [trailer]” during this argument, particularly when no charges arose 

from the incident. Further, the trial court considered evidence that Patty regularly 

participated in counseling regarding domestic violence, and Isaac engaged in a 

perpetrator-related domestic violence program.

The evidence does not support the trial court’s Findings of Fact that 

“[respondents] continue to engage in domestic violence,” “the issues of . . . domestic 

violence . . . are still present [with respondents],” “there has been domestic violence 

in the home between [Isaac] and his mother” since 2017, or that respondents’ issues 

with domestic violence remain unresolved. I agree with the Majority that the trial 

court’s findings regarding Patty and domestic violence were erroneous, but disagree 

with its characterization of the evidence regarding Isaac and domestic violence. 

Competent evidence did not support the trial court’s findings that respondents have 

not resolved their issues with domestic violence, which the trial court used to support 

Finding of Fact 26 that respondents acted inconsistently with their constitutionally 

protected status as parents. In light of that lack of competent evidence to support the 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

18

trial court’s findings regarding respondents and domestic violence, I would set aside 

Findings of Fact 26(c), 28, 30, 40, 41(b), and 44 to the extent they find respondents 

had failed to rectify their issues with domestic violence to an extent that Iliana could 

not return to live with them.

3. Drug Abuse

On appeal, respondents challenge the trial court’s Findings of Fact 26(c), 28, 

40(c), 41(b), 41(c), 43(a), and 44, which find that Patty and Isaac had failed to rectify 

their issues with drug abuse to an extent that Iliana could return to live with them. 

In particular, the trial court found the following: “[Patty and Isaac] continue to 

engage in . . . illegal drug use despite their completion of treatment and classes[]”; 

“the issues of substance use . . . and safe, substance-free housing are still present 

despite numerous services that have been offered to the family”; “[t]he issues that led 

to removal of custody, to wit, substance abuse . . . have not been resolved[]”; “[Patty 

and Isaac] have been involved with the Department since October 2015 due to 

concerns about substance use, . . . and . . . the same issues [] remain unresolved in 

2019[]”; “[Patty and Isaac] continue to use marijuana despite substance abuse 

treatment. [Patty] has sought prescription painkillers from her mother on more than 

one occasion while [Iliana] has been placed out of the home[]”; “[Patty and Isaac] are 

not making adequate progress . . . [and] have not resolved the issue[] of substance 

abuse . . . that led to removal of custody[]”; and “[t]he best plan of care to achieve a 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

19

safe, permanent home for [Iliana] within a reasonable period of time is . . . to [place 

Iliana with] maternal grandmother.”

The trial court considered evidence that respondents completed substance 

abuse treatment on 16 March 2018. Wise testified that respondents provided hair 

follicles for a drug screen, and the screen of both respondents on 4 September 2018 

indicated marijuana use. The trial court was also presented with evidence of Patty’s 

continued drug seeking behavior after the 7 November 2017 Permanency Planning 

Order. 

Wise testified that Patty had engaged in drug seeking behavior after the 

appeal and remand of the 7 November 2017 Order; specifically, Patty texted “her 

mother[] requesting pain medications on several occasions,” including a text message 

asking “Do you have a couple of pills I can get?” on 10 June 2018, as well as a text 

message on 10 August 2018 requesting pain medication. Patty’s drug seeking 

behavior is supportive of the trial court’s findings of Patty’s continued drug use. Since 

competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings that Patty continued to abuse 

drugs, I agree with the Majority and would not set aside the challenged findings 

concerning Patty’s issues with drug abuse. 

However, the Record does not contain such evidence of continued drug seeking 

behavior as related to Isaac. Unlike evidence of Patty’s continued drug seeking 

behavior after the appeal and remand of the 7 November 2017 Order, the only 

evidence since February 2017 of Isaac participating in drug use is a hair follicle 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

20

sample from 4 September 2018 indicating marijuana use. The Majority also mentions 

a text message exchange between respondents about marijuana on 4 April 2018, which 

did not constitute the same drug seeking behavior as Patty in her text messages to 

other individuals asking for drugs. The trial court was not presented with any other 

evidence showing Isaac’s participation in drugs, or drug abuse, since February 2017, 

other than the 4 September 2018 test. Competent evidence did not support the trial 

court’s findings that Isaac continued to abuse drugs, which the trial court used to 

support its finding that Isaac acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected 

status as Iliana’s parent. In light of that lack of competent evidence to support the 

trial court’s findings regarding Isaac and continued drug abuse, I would set aside 

findings 26(c), 28, 40(c), 41(b), 41(c), 43(a), and 44 to the extent they find Isaac had 

failed to rectify his issues with drug abuse to an extent that Iliana could not return 

to live with him. Additionally, to the extent Finding of Fact 26 relied on findings that 

Isaac had failed to rectify his issues with housing, domestic violence, and drug abuse, 

I would set aside that Finding of Fact that Isaac had acted inconsistently with his 

constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana.

E. Challenged Conclusion of Law 6

The trial court relied on the unsupported portions of Findings of Fact 26(b), 

26(c), 27, 28, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41(b), 41(c), 41(d), 43(a), and 44 regarding respondents’ 

housing, domestic violence, and drug abuse to support its Conclusion of Law 6 that 

respondents acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected right to parent 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

21

Iliana. See In re A.C., 247 N.C. App. at 535, 786 S.E.2d at 735. Specifically, I would 

review whether the remaining findings of fact support Conclusion of Law 6 in light of 

my previous analysis that competent evidence only supported the trial court’s 

findings that Patty continued to abuse drugs. See In re A.A.S., 258 N.C. App. 422, 

429, 812 S.E.2d 875, 881 (2018); see also In re A.B., 239 N.C. App. 157, 160, 768 S.E.2d 

573, 575 (2015).

Clear and convincing evidence of Patty’s continued drug seeking behavior 

supported the trial court’s Conclusion of Law 6 that Patty acted inconsistently with 

her constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana. Patty’s text messages to her 

mother seeking drugs were clear and convincing evidence that supported Conclusion 

of Law 6. However, the same conclusion does not necessarily follow for Isaac. Unlike 

evidence in the Record of Patty’s continued drug seeking behavior when she texted 

her mother seeking drugs, the Record only contains evidence of one instance since 

February 2017 linking Isaac to participating in marijuana use, aside from his text 

message exchange about marijuana with Patty. 

Evidence that respondents participated in efforts to correct the issues that led 

to Iliana’s removal from their home regarding domestic violence, sobriety, and 

housing stability, and maintained involvement with Iliana, does not support the trial 

court’s Conclusion of Law 6. Competent evidence did not support findings that Isaac 

“continue[s] to engage in . . . illegal drug use,” particularly since a marked lack of 

evidence exists in the Record concerning continued drug seeking behavior by Isaac. 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

22

Limited marijuana usage, without more, is not conduct inconsistent with one’s 

constitutionally protected parental rights. Since “[t]he clear and convincing standard 

requires evidence that should fully convince,” In re A.C., 247 N.C. App. at 533, 786 

S.E.2d at 734, and the Record lacks evidence that fully convinces or supports 

Conclusion of Law 6, the trial court erred in concluding that Isaac acted 

inconsistently with his parental rights. Finding of Fact 26 that Isaac acted 

inconsistently with his parental rights is not supported by competent evidence, 

should be set aside, and does not support the trial court’s Conclusion of Law 6 that 

Isaac acted inconsistently with his parental rights.

Competent evidence of Patty’s continued drug seeking behavior supported the 

trial court’s findings regarding Patty’s drug abuse, including Finding of Fact 26 that 

Patty acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana. 

These findings supported Conclusion of Law 6 that Patty acted inconsistently with 

her constitutionally protected right to parent Iliana. Accordingly, I concur with the 

Majority that we should affirm the trial court’s ruling as to Patty. 

However, the Record does not contain competent evidence supporting the trial 

court’s findings that Isaac’s housing situation, domestic violence, or drug abuse 

prevented Iliana from returning to live with him. In particular, Finding of Fact 26 

that Isaac acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected right to parent 

Iliana was unsupported by competent evidence, and the findings did not support

Conclusion of Law 6. I acknowledge that further findings would be necessary on 
IN RE I.K.

Murphy, J., dissenting

23

remand concerning Iliana’s placement with Isaac, as Patty resides with Isaac and 

continues to exhibit drug seeking behavior. 

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s Finding of Fact 26 and Conclusion of Law 6 concerning Patty 

acting inconsistently with her constitutionally protected right to parent the minor 

child were not erroneous, as the Record contained competent evidence of Patty’s 

continued drug use, and the findings concerning continued drug use supported 

Conclusion of Law 6. 

However, the trial court’s Finding of Fact 26 and Conclusion of Law 6 

concerning Isaac acting inconsistently with his constitutionally protected right to 

parent the minor child were erroneous, as the Record did not contain competent 

evidence of Isaac’s continued drug use to the extent inconsistent with his 

constitutional rights to parent his child, domestic violence, or unsafe housing 

conditions, and the findings did not support Conclusion of Law 6. 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its visitation order concerning 

Patty, as the Order complied with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-905.1(c). 

Unlike the Majority, I would remand this matter for further findings 

concerning Iliana’s placement with Isaac without placing her with Patty. 

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.