Title: In re R.D.M.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 193A20
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: March 19, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-31 
No. 193A20 
Filed 19 March 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF: R.D.M., Z.A.M., J.M.B., and J.J.B. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) and on writ of certiorari 
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review an order entered on 9 March 2020 by Judge 
Monica M. Bousman in District Court, Wake County. This matter was calendared in 
the Supreme Court on 11 February 2021 but determined on the record and briefs 
without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules of 
Appellate Procedure. 
 
Mary Boyce Wells for petitioner-appellee Wake County Human Services. 
 
Kelsey V. Monk for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Jeffrey L. Miller for respondent-appellant mother. 
 
Sean P. Vitrano for respondent-appellant father. 
 
 
EARLS, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondents, the mother of the four minor children, R.D.M., Z.A.M., J.M.B., 
and J.J.B.,1 and the father of the two youngest children, R.D.M. and Z.A.M.,2 appeal 
from the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights. Counsel for each 
                                            
1 Initials are used to protect the juveniles’ identities. 
2 The fathers of J.M.B. and J.J.B. are not parties to this appeal. 
IN RE R.D.M., Z.A.M., J.M.B., AND J.J.B. 
2021-NCSC-31 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
respondent have filed no-merit briefs pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina 
Rules of Appellate Procedure. We conclude that the issues identified by both counsel 
in respondents’ briefs have no merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s order. 
¶ 2 
 
On 10 July 2018, Wake County Human Services (“WCHS”) obtained nonsecure 
custody of the children and filed juvenile petitions alleging they were neglected and 
dependent. WCHS alleged concerns related to respondent-mother’s substance use 
and mental health, unstable housing, injurious environment, and respondents’ 
failure to provide for the children’s needs. 
¶ 3 
 
On 22 August 2018 and 2 October 2018, the trial court entered consent orders 
adjudicating the children to be neglected juveniles based on stipulations by 
respondent-mother. On 28 November 2018, the trial court adopted a primary 
permanent plan of reunification with a secondary permanent plan of adoption. 
Respondents were ordered to enter into, and comply with, case plans addressing the 
reasons for the children’s removal. 
¶ 4 
 
Following a 14 October 2019 permanency planning hearing, the trial court 
entered an order on 6 November 2019 changing the permanent plan to adoption with 
a secondary plan of reunification. The court found that respondents were not 
participating in the services ordered by the court to facilitate reunification, were not 
making adequate progress toward reunification, and were not cooperating with 
WCHS, the guardian ad litem, or the court. 
IN RE R.D.M., Z.A.M., J.M.B., AND J.J.B. 
2021-NCSC-31 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 5 
 
On 18 November 2019, WCHS filed a motion to terminate respondents’ 
parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the children in foster care 
for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the 
conditions that led to the children’s removal, and willfully failing to pay a reasonable 
portion of the cost of care. Following a hearing held on 12 February 2020 and 13 
February 2020, the trial court entered an order on 9 March 2020 concluding that 
grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights due to neglect and 
willful failure to make reasonable progress, and respondent-father’s parental rights 
due to neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and willful failure to pay 
a reasonable portion of the cost of the children’s care. The trial court further 
concluded that termination of respondents’ parental rights was in the children’s best 
interests. Accordingly, the trial court terminated respondents’ parental rights. 
Respondents appealed. 
¶ 6 
 
On 16 July 2020, respondent-father filed a petition for writ of certiorari 
recognizing that his notice of appeal was untimely and did not contain a certificate of 
service. On 30 December 2020, we allowed respondent-father’s petition. 
¶ 7 
 
Counsel for respondents have filed no-merit briefs on their clients’ behalf under 
Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. In their briefs, each 
counsel identified several issues that could arguably support an appeal but also 
explained why they believe those issues lack merit. Counsel also advised respondents 
IN RE R.D.M., Z.A.M., J.M.B., AND J.J.B. 
2021-NCSC-31 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
of their right to file a pro se brief and provided them with the documents necessary 
to do so. Neither respondent has submitted a pro se brief to this Court. 
¶ 8 
 
We independently review issues identified by counsel in a no-merit brief filed 
pursuant to Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). After considering the 
entire record and reviewing the issues identified in the no-merit briefs, we conclude 
that the 9 March 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 respondents’ parental rights. 
AFFIRMED.