Court Opinion

ID: 9387505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 12:04:22.970719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.854330
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                   No. COA22-701

                                 Filed 18 April 2023

Gaston County, No. 20-JT-65

In re:

B.M.S.

         Appeal by Respondent-Mother from order entered 9 June 2022 by Judge John

K. Greenlee in Gaston County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22

March 2023.

         Elizabeth Myrick Boone for Petitioner-Appellee Gaston County Department of
         Health and Human Services.

         Michelle FormyDuval Lynch for Guardian ad Litem.

         Kimberly Connor Benton for Respondent-Appellant Mother.

         COLLINS, Judge.

         Respondent-Mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her

parental rights to her minor child based upon neglect and willfully leaving the child

in foster care or placement outside the home for more than 12 months without

showing that reasonable progress under the circumstances has been made in

correcting those conditions which led to the removal of the child. Mother argues that

the trial court reversibly erred by concluding that it was in the child’s best interests

to terminate Mother’s parental rights. We affirm.
                                              IN RE: B.M.S.

                                            Opinion of the Court

                                       I.      Background

      Mother is the biological parent of Bella,1 who was born on 7 November 2019.

The day after Bella’s birth, while Mother and Bella were stilled hospitalized, Gaston

County Department of Health and Human Services (“DSS”) received a report from

the hospital that Mother had been seen hiding drug paraphernalia at the hospital

and was found unresponsive on the floor. Mother admitted that she was hiding a pill

bottle, a cigarette, a vape pen, and a syringe without a needle, and stated that she

had taken a Xanax. Mother also admitted to using heroin and other prescription

drugs, and she tested positive for benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates.

Hospital staff observed that Bella was experiencing withdrawal symptoms, in the

form of jitters and tremors, and Bella required morphine to control the withdrawal

symptoms. The hospital staff reported that Mother did not show an interest in Bella,

did not want to feed her, and threatened to leave Bella alone in the hospital if the

staff tried to place Bella in another room. Following the hospital’s report, DSS

initiated a safety plan between Mother and Bella; DSS placed Bella in a temporary

safety foster home and required that Mother have no unsupervised contact with

Bella. Mother further agreed to engage in substance abuse treatment and mental

health services.

      On 26 February 2020, DSS filed a petition alleging that Bella was neglected

      1   We use a pseudonym to protect the identity of the minor child. See N.C. R. App. P. 42.

                                                   -2-
                                    IN RE: B.M.S.

                                  Opinion of the Court

based upon Mother’s substance abuse. Despite agreeing to engage in substance abuse

treatment and mental health services, Mother only went for one substance abuse

assessment at Bridging the Gap, a treatment program. During that assessment,

Mother admitted to continued use of illegal substances and admitted that she

continued to use heroin while also taking prescription methadone. Bridging the Gap

reported that they could not work with Mother until she completed a detoxification

program and inpatient treatment, but Mother refused either treatment option.

Mother also failed to comply with two requested drug screens and then tested positive

for drugs during two other requested drug screens.

      Bella was adjudicated neglected on 15 September 2020 based upon Mother’s

substance abuse. Mother was ordered to contact DSS to enter into a new case plan;

comply with the terms of her case plan; refrain from using or abusing illegal or

mindaltering substances; complete a mental health and substance abuse assessment

and comply with the treatment recommendations; submit to drug testing as

requested by DSS and have negative results; enroll in and complete parenting

classes; obtain and maintain safe, appropriate, and stable housing; attend visits with

Bella and demonstrate effective parenting skills; sign all necessary consents for DSS;

refrain from criminal activity; and obtain and maintain employment and provide for

Bella’s needs.

      From October 2020 through August 2021, Mother made some progress on her

case plan as she enrolled in substance abuse treatment classes and attended a little

                                         -3-
                                    IN RE: B.M.S.

                                  Opinion of the Court

over half of the recommended treatment hours. Mother also enrolled in and attended

some parenting classes and attended some of the scheduled visitation with Bella.

However, Mother failed to make progress on much of her case plan: she was

unsuccessfully discharged from her substance abuse treatment program; attended

only a few of the drug screens by DSS, and tested positive during the drug screens

that she attended; did not engage in mental health treatment; and did not provide

DSS with proof of employment or income.

      On 25 August 2021, DSS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights,

alleging that Mother neglected Bella, that Bella would be neglected if returned to her

care, and that Mother willfully left Bella in foster care for more than 12 months

without showing to the trial court that reasonable progress had been made in

correcting the conditions that led to Bella’s removal from Mother’s care.        At a

permanency planning hearing in September, the trial court found that Mother still

had not complied with mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment,

medication management, or requested drug screens. It also found that Mother had

not re-engaged in substance abuse treatment after being unsuccessfully discharged

from her first treatment program. At subsequent permanency planning hearings, the

trial court found that Mother continued not to comply with mental health or

substance abuse treatment, did not comply with drug screens, did not obtain or show

proof of employment, and failed to provide DSS with updates on her case plan

progress.

                                         -4-
                                       IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

      The matter came on for hearing on 9 May 2022. The trial court found that

grounds existed to terminate Mother’s rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §

7B-1111(a)(1), neglect, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2), willfully leaving Bella in

foster care or placement outside the home for more than 12 months while failing to

make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions which led to Bella’s removal.

The trial court then concluded that it was in Bella’s best interests for Mother’s rights

to be terminated. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on 21 June 2022.

                                 II.     Discussion

      Mother argues that the trial court committed reversible error by concluding

that it was in Bella’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother

does not challenge the adjudicatory portion of the trial court’s ruling and this issue is

not before us. See In re A.J.T., 374 N.C. 504, 508, 843 S.E.2d 192, 195 (2020).

A. Standard of Review

      “Termination of parental rights involves a two-stage process.” In re L.H., 210

N.C. App. 355, 362, 708 S.E.2d 191, 196 (2011) (citation omitted).              “At the

adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear, cogent, and

convincing evidence the existence of one or more grounds for termination under

section 7B-1111(a) of our General Statutes.” In re D.C., 378 N.C. 556, 559, 862 S.E.2d

614, 616 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the petitioner meets its

evidentiary burden with respect to a statutory ground and the trial court concludes

that the parent’s rights may be terminated, then the matter proceeds to the

                                           -5-
                                      IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

disposition phase, at which the trial court determines whether termination is in the

best interests of the child.” In re H.N.D., 265 N.C. App. 10, 13, 827 S.E.2d 329, 332-33

(2019) (citation omitted). If, in its discretion, the trial court determines that it is in

the child’s best interests, the trial court may then terminate the parent’s rights. In

re Howell, 161 N.C. App. 650, 656, 589 S.E.2d 157, 161 (2003).

      This Court reviews the “trial court’s dispositional findings of fact . . . under a

‘competent evidence’ standard.” In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50, 57, 839 S.E.2d 735, 740

(2020) (citations omitted). A trial court’s findings of fact are binding “where there is

some evidence to support those findings, even though evidence might sustain findings

to the contrary.” In re J.C.J., 381 N.C. 783, 795, 874 S.E.2d 888, 897 (2022) (citation

omitted). We review a trial court’s assessment of a juvenile’s best interest at the

dispositional stage for abuse of discretion, reversing only where the decision is

“manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the

result of a reasoned decision.” In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. 190, 199, 835 S.E.2d 417, 423

(2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

B. Disposition

      Mother challenges the trial court’s dispositional findings of fact 1, 6, 7, 8, 9,

and 16 as being unsupported by competent evidence.

      At the dispositional hearing, the trial court may consider

             written reports or other evidence concerning the needs of
             the juvenile. . . . The Court may consider any evidence,
             including hearsay evidence as defined in G.S. 8C-1, Rule

                                          -6-
                                     IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

             801, including testimony or evidence from any person who
             is not a party, that the court finds to be relevant, reliable,
             and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and
             the most appropriate disposition.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-901(a) (2022). The trial court may also incorporate into its

findings information from written reports, as well as findings made at adjudication.

In re K.W., 272 N.C. App. 487, 494, 846 S.E.2d 584, 589 (2020).

   1. Dispositional Finding of Fact 1

      The trial court incorporated all of its findings from the adjudication in the

dispositional order’s finding of fact 1, which provides: “The Court hereby restates and

incorporates its Adjudicatory Findings of Fact as if fully set out in this portion of the

Order.” However, Mother specifically explains that she “only challenges findings of

fact 31 and 34 from the adjudicatory portion of the order” as being unsupported by

evidence. Adjudicatory finding of fact 31 states that “Respondent/mother has failed

to obtain stable and appropriate housing” and the ajudicatory finding of fact 34 states

that “Respondent/mother has failed to consistently stay in contact with the

Department.”

      We agree with Mother that there does not appear to be record or testimonial

support for finding of fact 31. Our review of the evidence shows that, on multiple

occasions, DSS reports noted that Mother failed to provide them with proof of stable

housing. Additionally, when asked if Mother had provided any proof of maintaining

safe and appropriate housing for her and Bella throughout the entire process,

                                          -7-
                                    IN RE: B.M.S.

                                  Opinion of the Court

Covington, a DSS social worker, responded, “She has not.” However, the trial court’s

finding did not speak to whether Mother provided DSS with proof of stable housing;

it found that Mother failed to obtain stable and appropriate housing. Mother testified

that she lived with her mom at the same address for 3.5 years and a DSS report shows

that DSS was aware that Mother was residing at that address. It is unclear whether

or not DSS found the housing acceptable, but the testimonial evidence shows that

both Mother and DSS knew that Mother was living at the maternal grandmother’s

home. The record and testimonial evidence thus do not support that Mother failed to

obtain stable and appropriate housing.

       Record and testimonial evidence supports finding of fact 34. A social worker

testified at trial that Mother attended only approximately 40% of drug screenings

requested by DSS and that her visitation with Bella was not consistent. Mother

testified that she stopped attending the requested drug screens and stopped providing

DSS with requested employment information in July 2021. Record evidence shows

that DSS attempted multiple times to obtain an update on Mother’s substance abuse

issues, housing status, and employment status, and that Mother did not update DSS

with that information.    This competent evidence supports that Mother failed to

consistently stay in contact with DSS. In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. at 57, 839 S.E.2d at

740.

   2. Dispositional Finding of Fact 6

       Finding of fact 6 states: “A permanent plan of care can only be accomplished

                                         -8-
                                       IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

by the severing of the relationship between the juvenile and the Respondent/Mother

by termination of parental rights of the Respondent/Mother.”

       The unchallenged findings of fact and testimony from a DSS social worker

support finding of fact 6. The trial court found that “[t]he termination of the parental

rights of [Mother] will aid in the accomplishment of the permanent plan [of adoption]

for the juvenile” and that Bella “deserves safety, security, emotional support and a

permanent home.” Additionally, Covington testified that the permanent plan for

Bella was adoption and that termination of Mother’s parental rights would be both

helpful and necessary in accomplishing that plan. This competent evidence supports

that the permanent plan of Bella’s adoption could only be accomplished by

terminating Mother’s rights. In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. at 57, 839 S.E.2d at 740.

     3. Dispositional Findings of Fact 7 & 8

       Finding of fact 7 states that “the juvenile has a bond with Respondent/Mother.

The bond has diminished, as Respondent/Mother has only been able to visit the

juvenile once a month due to the lack of Respondent/Mother’s progress on her case

plan.” Finding of fact 8 states that “[t]he juvenile knows who Respondent/mother is

and is excited to visit Respondent/Mother; however, the juvenile does not get upset

or    emotional   when    visitation    with     Respondent/Mother   is   over   or   if

Respondent/mother misses a visit.”

       Testimony from Covington supports findings of fact 7 and 8.           Covington

testified that: Bella had “a parental bond” with Mother; Bella saw Mother for only

                                           -9-
                                     IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

one hour per month during supervised visits; Mother was not consistent with her

visits; and Mother was previously allowed more visitation time but her time was

decreased due to her lack of progress with her case plan. Covington further testified

that while Bella gets excited to see her Mother during visits, she has gone more than

a month without seeing Mother and that there were no issues of sadness or negative

behaviors as a result of the missed visits; Bella just “continues on.” Record evidence

and the trial court’s finding of fact 33 support that Mother missed visits with Bella.

This competent evidence supports that Bella has a diminished bond with Mother and

support the remainder of findings of fact 7 and 8. See In re H.B., 877 S.E.2d 128, 139

(N.C. Ct. App. 2022) (affirming a finding that a bond did not exist between parent

and child where the parent did not care for the child and failed to visit consistently).

   4. Dispositional Finding of Fact 9

      Finding of fact 9 states: “That the conduct of Respondent/Mother has been such

as to demonstrate that she will not promote the juvenile’s physical or emotional

well-being.”

      The      following   unchallenged   adjudicatory    findings,   incorporated   into

dispositional finding of fact 1, support that Mother will not promote Bella’s physical

and emotional well-being. The trial court found that:

               17. The juvenile was adjudicated to be a “Neglected”
               juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B-101(15) by Order
               entered August 18, 2020. . . .
               ....

                                          - 10 -
                        IN RE: B.M.S.

                      Opinion of the Court

20. The juvenile [Bella] is thirty (30) months of age. The
juvenile has been in the custody of the Department for
approximately twenty-seven (27) months.
21.   The Court has regularly reviewed Respondent
Mother’s case progress toward regaining custody of the
juvenile, and the Court has never concluded at any hearing
that Respondent/Mother has made reasonable progress to
warrant returning custody to Respondent/Mother.
22. Respondent/Mother has failed to correct the conditions
that led to the removal of the juvenile from her custody,
such that the neglect would continue if the juvenile were
returned to Respondent/Mother’s care. The neglect has
continued through the date of this hearing and is not due
to the poverty of the Respondent/Mother.
23. Respondent/Mother entered into a case plan with the
Department; however, failed to complete said case plan.
....
25. Respondent/mother has submitted to drug screens and
has tested positive for illegal substances on most of her
drug screens. . . .
26. Respondent/mother provided sworn testimony that she
has had a substance abuse addiction for eight (8) years
with a $400.00 a day habit. Respondent/mother also
testified that she did not test positive for heroin on her drug
screens for Department; however, she used heroin when
she relapsed in July 2021.
....
28. Respondent/mother testified under oath that she last
used heroin two and a half weeks ago.
29. Respondent/mother has obtained a dual assessment;
however, has not completed the recommended services.
Respondent/mother enrolled in treatment . . . in November
2020; however, did not complete treatment and was
discharged from program. Respondent/mother enrolled in
treatment at Beaty Recovery Services; however, did not
complete the individual therapy and was discharged from
the program in July of 2021.

                             - 11 -
                        IN RE: B.M.S.

                     Opinion of the Court

....
32. Respondent/Mother has found some employment while
the juvenile has been in the custody of the Department;
however, Respondent/Mother has failed to maintain
employment or sufficient financial resources to support the
juvenile.
33. Respondent/mother attended some visits with the
juvenile.
....
35. Respondent/Mother has failed to contribute to the
financial support of the juvenile through regular child
support contributions and has failed to provide for the basic
needs of the juvenile.
36.    Since the juvenile has been in foster care,
Respondent/Mother has failed to demonstrate the ability to
meet the juvenile’s basic needs for food, shelter, clothing,
education, and health care.
37. Respondent/Mother has failed to demonstrate the
ability to parent and protect the juvenile.
38. The Court finds that there were multiple items on
Respondent/Mother’s case plan to be completed and she
has completed parenting classes and completed several
mental health and substance abuse assessments; however,
never completed mental health or substance abuse
treatment.
39. The Court further finds that there is a high likelihood
of a repetition of neglect in that none of the conditions that
brought the juvenile into the Department’s custody has
been corrected.
....
41. The Court finds that Respondent/Mother neglected the
juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and G.S.
7B-101(15) in that the neglect has continued through the
date of this hearing and is not due solely to the poverty of
the Respondent/Mother. Respondent/Mother has failed to
correct the conditions that led to the removal of the juvenile
from her custody, specifically substance abuse, such that

                            - 12 -
                                     IN RE: B.M.S.

                                  Opinion of the Court

             neglect would continue if the juvenile was returned to her
             care. The juvenile was previously adjudicated neglected
             and there is a high probability of the reptition of neglect if
             the juvenile was returned to the custody of
             Respondent/Mother.
             42. The Court also finds that grounds exist based on G.S.
             7B-1111(a)(2) in that Respondent/Mother has willfully, and
             not due solely to poverty, left the juvenile in foster care or
             placement outside of the home for more than twelve (12)
             months without showing to the satisfaction of the court
             that reasonable progress under the circumstances has been
             made in correcting those conditions which led to removal of
             the juvenile.

      These unchallenged findings show that Mother failed to correct the substance

abuse conditions which led to Bella’s removal and support that a risk of future neglect

is probable. Record evidence shows that Bella had drugs in her system at birth,

suffered from withdrawal symptoms that had to be treated with morphine, and that

Mother admitted at the hospital to using heroin. The findings show that Mother

admitted to using heroin just two weeks prior to the hearing on the termination of

her parental rights. The competent record evidence and unchallenged findings of fact

support the finding that Mother’s conduct demonstrates “that she will not promote

the juvenile’s physical or emotional well-being.” In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. at 57, 839

S.E.2d at 740.

   5. Dispositional Finding of Fact 16

      Finding of fact 16 states: “The negative impact on the juvenile if

Respondent/Mother’s parental rights are terminated would be minimal and the

juvenile would be more than capable of handling such an impact.”

                                         - 13 -
                                     IN RE: B.M.S.

                                  Opinion of the Court

      Covington’s testimony provides support for finding of fact 16.          Covington

testified that Bella had gone more than a month without seeing Mother and did not

have any behavioral issues from Mother missing the visits; she also testified that

Bella has not expressed “any sadness or negative behaviors after long breaks between

visits.” Moreover, Covington was specifically asked about any potential negative

impact on Bella:

             Q. What is the likelihood of [Bella] being adopted if both
             the Respondent parent’s rights were terminated today?
             A. It would be highly likely.
             Q. And do you have any concerns with any negative impact
             on [Bella] if the parent’s parental rights were terminated?
             A. Negative, like behaviorally, I mean simply because I
             haven’t seen it. I mean she -- it’s hard to say like as far as
             like any cognitive. I mean of course not seeing her mom
             may play an impact to some degree but --
             Q. Do you think it will -- is it a long-term concern that you
             have?
             A. No.

      This testimony provides support for the challenged finding of fact.         In re

K.N.K., 374 N.C. at 57, 839 S.E.2d at 740.

   6. Best Interests Determination

      When making its best interests determination and dispositional findings,

             the court shall consider the following criteria and make
             written findings regarding the following that are relevant:

             (1) The age of the juvenile.
             (2) The likelihood of adoption of the juvenile.

                                            - 14 -
                                       IN RE: B.M.S.

                                     Opinion of the Court

               (3) Whether the termination of parental rights will aid in
               the accomplishment of the permanent plan for the juvenile.
               (4) The bond between the juvenile and the parent.
               (5) The quality of the relationship between the juvenile and
               the proposed adoptive parent, guardian, custodian, or other
               permanent placement.
               (6) Any relevant considersation.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) (2022). It is the province of the trial court to weigh these

factors, and it may assign more weight to one or more factors over the others. In re

C.L.C., 171 N.C. App. 438, 448, 615 S.E.2d 704, 709-10 (2005). The best interests of

the child is the “polar star” for the trial court to consider. In re Montgomery, 311 N.C.

101, 109, 316 S.E.2d 246, 251 (1984).

         Here, the trial court made the requisite findings of fact as to all factors listed

in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) and Mother does not contest that the trial court made

findings as to all of these factors. Instead, Mother argues that the trial court failed

to make a reasoned analysis and give sufficient weight to her maternal bond with

Bella.    However, the transcript shows that the trial court carefully considered

Mother’s bond with Bella:

               The Court: . . . This goes to [Mother], and, obviously, there
               is a mother-daughter bond there, obviously.
               It’s evidenced by her excitement, what she calls her, the
               fact that they do interact well together during the visits.
               So there is a bond, and I’m not in any way naïve enough or
               blind to the fact that if those visits stopped there would be
               a potential negative reaction from [Bella]. I mean that’s --
               of course. You have a bond with someone. You have a
               relationship with someone. That relationship ends, and it

                                            - 15 -
                        IN RE: B.M.S.

                      Opinion of the Court

can be hard. But for my purposes at this point in the
hearing, my only concern of whether it’s -- how hard it is
and whether it’s hard on [Bella]. I have no doubt that it’s
going to be exteremly hard on [Mother], but that legally
speaking my polar star is [Bella], not [Mother], and how
she’s going to react to it or how it’s going to make them feel.
I’m sure it would be devastating, but legally speaking and
practically speaking and in all intents what’s best for
[Bella], I have to look at what it’s going to do to [Bella],
potentially do to [Bella].
....
Frankly, this seems to be a child from the evidence I’ve
heard that is extremely well-adjusted, very adaptive, a
child that is flexible and a child that amazingly considering
the situation, is open to bonding and forming these close
relationships with people that care for her and she cares
for.
I don’t always see that. I see these things sometimes
stunting children. I’ve got evidence that she’s excited
whens she gets to see her mom and her grandmother, and
she’s excited when she gets to go back home to her foster
home where she spends the majority of her time, honest --
I mean when you have one hour a month out of the amount
of . . . hours in a month, the overwhelming majority of the
time she spends with her foster family and foster siblings.
She seems to be very adaptable and willing to form bonds
and no problem forming bonds, loving bonds, bonds that
excite her, bonds that make her happy. She has that with
her mother. She has that with her grandmother. She has
that with her foster family and her foster siblings.
So, ultimately, what I have to decide under all of the factors
under 7B-1110, not just one, but all of the factors, what’s
in her best interest moving forward, today forward fully
recognizing that terminating any type of bond could be
upsetting to her. But she’s certainly shown the ability and
the developmental ability to adapt and overcome hardships
in her life and the fact that she’s in foster care very well. .
. . [Bella] deserves a safe, stable, appropriate, loving, caring
home, all of those things, not just one or two of them, but

                             - 16 -
                                     IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

             all of them.
             I have no doubt that [Bella] is loved by her mother, her
             grandmother . . . but that also exists in her current
             placement where she’s been for the majority of her life, over
             half of her life anyway. She came into custody, . . .
             approximately three months old, a three-month-old, who is
             starting to form memories, attachments, and remember
             things, and starting to build these things, she -- she has
             only known foster care. That’s all she’s ever known.
             ....
             Love is very important. I don’t doubt that she gets that
             from [Mother], no doubt, but the reality is for almost two
             years, everything else, including the love that she gets from
             her foster family and her foster siblings, everything else
             she’s gotten from her foster family, everything else . . . . So
             I certainly understand the social worker’s opinion that that
             bond would be stronger because it’s a daily bond that’s
             reinforced daily. . . .
             ....
             But you’ve said it yourself, she deserves a fit mom that she
             deserves and you’ve -- you’ve indicated and agreed that, in
             fact, you said today you take full responsibility for the fact
             that you aren’t that today.
             ....
             Every day this child gets older. Every day this child has
             new experiences in her life, and she -- she deserves that
             and she deserves to be somewhere she knows she’s going to
             be and safe, stable, and appropriate.

      The trial court thoughtfully considered and analyzed the bond between Bella

and Mother in its dispositional ruling, and particularly considered any potential

impact that severing the bond could have on Bella. After such consideration, the trial

court determined that it was in Bella’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental

rights. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by terminating Mother’s parental

                                          - 17 -
                                       IN RE: B.M.S.

                                   Opinion of the Court

rights as its decision was well-reasoned and supported by the record evidence. See In

re A.J.T., 374 N.C. at 512, 843 S.E.2d at 197 (“The bond between parent and child is

just one of the factors to be considered[.]” (brackets and citation omitted)); In re

Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 101, 839 S.E.2d 792, 801 (2020) (concluding no abuse of

discretion where trial court considered all N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110 factors, made

proper findings on those factors, and analyzed the parental bond but gave more

weight to other factors over the parental bond).

                                III.    Conclusion

      There is competent record and testimonial evidence to support the trial court’s

dispositional findings of fact, with the exception of adjudicatory finding of fact 31, as

incorporated into dispositional finding of fact 1. In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. at 57, 839

S.E.2d at 740. However, even without adjudicatory finding of fact 31, the trial court’s

decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights was not an abuse of discretion as it

was not “manifestly unsupported by reason or one so arbitrary that it could not have

been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re A.R.A., 373 N.C. at 199, 835 S.E.2d at

423 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

      AFFIRMED.

      Judges DILLON and ARROWOOD concur.

                                          - 18 -