Opinion ID: 4549156
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjudication of Dependency

Text: Respondent-mother also challenges the trial court’s adjudication of dependency under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6) as an additional ground for termination. Subsection 7B-1111(a)(6) authorizes the termination of parental rights in cases where the parent is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile, such that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of [N.C.]G.S. [§] 7B-101, and that there is a reasonable probability that the incapability will continue for the foreseeable future. Incapability under this subdivision may be the result of substance abuse, intellectual disability, mental illness, organic brain syndrome, or any other cause or condition that renders the parent unable or unavailable to parent the juvenile and the parent lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6); see also N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(9). As the Court of Appeals has held, in order to sustain an adjudication of dependency, the trial court’s findings of fact must establish “both (1) the parent’s [in]ability to provide care or supervision, and (2) the [un]availability to the parent of alternative child care arrangements.” In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423, 427, 610 S.E.2d 403, 406 (2005). -32- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court Respondent-mother contests the trial court’s ultimate conclusion of law in support of its adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6), which was based on the following findings of fact: 42. [The Mother] is incapable of providing a safe, permanent home for the juvenile. Although the Mother has participated in individual therapy, there is no clear, convincing evidence that the Mother has incorporated the knowledge or techniques obtained through therapy into her everyday life. It is concerning to this [c]ourt that Ms. Hudson, the therapist, indicated that there were pertinent issues that were not discussed during the course of the therapeutic relationship between the Mother and the therapist. . . . Although the Mother initiated divorce proceedings, obtained a 50-B Domestic Violence Protective Order and renewed the protective order twice, the [c]ourt is concerned about the Mother’s involvement in yet another relationship [i.e., with Mr. Westray] since the juvenile’s removal in 2016 without addressing adverse issues from her prior relationships. The concerns and red flags raised in this new relationship causes the [c]ourt to question the Mother’s judgment. The Mother has not recommended anyone else to provide appropriate alternative care for the juvenile. .... 46. Grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of [the Mother] pursuant to . . . [N.C.G.S.] §[ ]7B1111(a)(6) of the North Carolina General Statutes. Based on our thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred by determining that respondent-mother was incapable of providing a safe, permanent home for Kirk. As set out above, the record shows that respondentmother—among other things—eliminated the threat posed to Kirk by respondentfather, confronted her own history of violent domestic relationships to the satisfaction -33- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court of her multiple treatment providers, displayed appropriate parenting techniques during her visits with Kirk, and obtained a suitable residence with ready access to transportation and social support. We are unable to agree with the trial court that the isolated incidents referenced in its termination order are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6). Accordingly, based on our careful review of the record, we hold that the trial court erred by terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights on the ground of dependency.4