Opinion ID: 2081521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Concurrent (B) and (C) Findings

Text: Finally, the mother maintains that the trial court's (B) and (C) findings were mutually exclusive and contradictory. This is because, as she understands it, the court found that she willfully failed to provide parental care to her children (under (9)(B)), [19] but also that she was incapable of providing such parental care because of her mental incapacity (under (9)(C)). Thus, she argues, the two findings contradict each other. This argument is without merit. We have, on many occasions, upheld (B) and (C) findings as to the same parent. See, e.g., In re E.H., 718 A.2d at 170-171. Contrary to what B.P. suggests, the two sections are independent of one another; indeed, the trial court's findings in this case serve as an example of their independence. The court's finding of neglect under subsection (9)(B) was based on the condition of the children, not on the mother's acts or omissions. This was entirely unrelated to the (9)(C) finding that the mother was unable to discharge ... her responsibilities to and for the child[ren] because of ... mental incapacity, which focused not on the children's condition but on the mother's fitness as a parent and her ability to provide care. It was altogether proper for the court to make concurrent findings of neglect under these two different subsections, and the trial court committed no error in doing so.