Court Opinion

ID: 9399706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 12:05:57.431658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.183335
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                         No. COA22-582

                                       Filed 06 June 2023

Forsyth County, Nos. 18 JA 123-25

IN THE MATTER OF:

N.T., K.M., A.C.

      Appeal by Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father from order entered 28

March 2022 by Judge David E. Sipprell in Forsyth County District Court. Heard in

the Court of Appeals 10 May 2023.

      Melissa Starr Livesay, Assistant County Attorney, for Petitioner-Appellee
      Forsyth County Department of Social Services.

      Ellis & Winters LLP, by James M. Weiss, for Appellee-Guardian ad Litem.

      Anné C. Wright for Respondent-Appellant Mother.

      Kimberly Connor Benton for Respondent-Appellant Father.

      COLLINS, Judge.

      Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father appeal from the trial court’s order

ceasing reunification efforts with their minor children Nate, Kat, and Amy1 and

awarding guardianship of the children to Nate’s paternal grandparents. We affirm.

      1   We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of the minor children. See N.C. R. App. P. 42.
                                      IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                         Opinion of the Court

                      I.    Factual and Procedural Background

      Mother is the biological mother of Nate, Kat, and Amy. Father is the biological

father of Nate and the caretaker of Kat and Amy.2

      Forsyth County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) received a report on 6

June 2018 that one-month old Nate had been admitted to Brenner’s Children’s

Hospital with an unexplained skull fracture. Although Mother and Father told DSS

that they were the sole caretakers for Nate, neither parent could provide an

explanation for Nate’s injuries. Nate was diagnosed with bilateral skull fractures,

bilateral scalp hematomas, and a small extra-axial hemorrhage along the right

cerebral portion of his brain. Dr. Stacy Thomas with Brenner’s Children’s Hospital

opined that Nate’s injuries were the result of non-accidental trauma.

      DSS filed petitions on 11 June 2018 alleging that Nate was abused and

neglected, and that Kat and Amy were neglected. DSS obtained nonsecure custody

of all three children and placed them with Nate’s paternal grandparents. After a

hearing on 17 October 2018, the trial court entered an order on 24 January 2019

adjudicating all three children neglected and ordering that custody remain with DSS.

      Throughout the life of the case, Mother maintained that Nate’s injuries were

caused by birth trauma. Furthermore, at a permanency planning meeting on 4 April

      2   Kat and Amy’s putative father is not a party to this appeal.

                                                 -2-
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                  Opinion of the Court

2019, Father presented new information to DSS and the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”)

regarding the possible cause of Nate’s injuries:

             The Father placed [Nate’s] car seat on the ground. [Amy]
             and [Kat] were in the back seat of the car arguing and the
             Father attempted to stop the girls from arguing when his
             foot hit [Nate’s] car se[a]t and [Nate] slipped out of the car
             seat onto the ground. The Mother was in the passenger
             seat but did not witness the accident. The Mother asked
             what happened after hearing [Nate] cry, the Father stated
             nothing.

      The trial court entered a permanency planning order on 15 May 2019, setting

a primary plan of guardianship and a secondary plan of reunification. Following a

hearing on 1 July 2020, the trial court entered an order on 31 August 2020 ceasing

reunification efforts with Mother and Father, eliminating reunification as a

secondary plan, and awarding guardianship of all three children to Nate’s paternal

grandparents.    Both Mother and Father appealed, and this Court vacated the

permanency planning order and remanded to the trial court to “determine whether

Nate is an Indian Child for purposes of ICWA and to ensure compliance with ICWA’s

notice requirements.”    In re N.T., 278 N.C. App. 811, 860 S.E.2d 343 (2021)

(unpublished).

      On remand, the trial court held an additional hearing on 21 February 2022

before entering an order on 28 March 2022 finding that ICWA did not apply, ceasing

reunification efforts, eliminating reunification as a secondary plan, and awarding

guardianship of all three children to Nate’s paternal grandparents.

                                         -3-
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                   Opinion of the Court

      Mother and Father timely appealed.

                                 II.   Discussion

A. Standard of Review

      “This Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine

whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based

upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s

conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to

disposition.” In re M.T., 285 N.C. App. 305, 322, 877 S.E.2d 732, 746 (2022) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s

ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”

In re J.M., 276 N.C. App. 291, 299, 856 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2021) (quotation marks and

citation omitted). “At the disposition stage, the trial court solely considers the best

interests of the child. . . .” In re J.H., 373 N.C. 264, 268, 837 S.E.2d 847, 850 (2020)

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

      The trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by any

competent evidence, notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record. In re C.M., 273

N.C. App. 427, 430, 848 S.E.2d 749, 751-52 (2020). The trial court’s conclusions of

law are reviewed de novo. In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. 269, 272-73, 802 S.E.2d 588, 591

(2017).

                                          -4-
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                  Opinion of the Court

B. Reunification

      Mother and Father both contend that the trial court erred by ceasing

reunification efforts and eliminating reunification as a permanent plan because the

findings of fact made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2 are not supported by

competent evidence.

      At a permanency planning hearing, reunification shall be a primary or

secondary plan unless, inter alia, the court makes written findings that reunification

efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s

health or safety. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b) (2022). The trial court must also make

written findings of fact concerning:

             (1) Whether the parent is making adequate progress within
             a reasonable period of time under the plan.
             (2) Whether the parent is actively participating in or
             cooperating with the plan, the department, and the
             guardian ad litem for the juvenile.
             (3) Whether the parent remains available to the court, the
             department, and the guardian ad litem for the juvenile.
             (4) Whether the parent is acting in a manner inconsistent
             with the health or safety of the juvenile.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) (2022).

      Here, the trial court made the following findings of fact:

             39. The [c]ourt ordered the Respondent Mother . . . to
             comply with all of the following in order to correct the
             circumstances which caused the children’s removal from
             her care and custody and adjudication if she wished to be
             reunified with the children:

                                         -5-
            IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

              Opinion of the Court

a. Notify FCDSS of any changes in address,
telephone number, income, employment, or
household composition within 24 hours:
[Mother] has reported that none of this information
has changed with the exception of her having a baby
in January 2022. Since this case has been pending
and [Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] have been removed,
[Mother] has had three children.
b. Comply with any recommendations made as
a result of the parenting capacity assessment
completed and provide any and all
documentation regarding how [Nate] received
his injuries other than birth trauma:
[Mother] reports that she continues to attend
individual counseling with Ms. Anne Doherty
monthly. However, when asked if therapy was
helpful or beneficial, [Mother] responded that it was
not beneficial or helpful, but stated she “will keep
trying it.” Previously, [Mother] signed a limited
release which only allowed her attorney to obtain
her records. Therefore, FCDSS has never received
any mental health records to be able to verify that
[Mother] is attending therapy or the nature of
objective of the therapy attended.
On February 8, 2022, FCDSS Social Work
Supervisor Burleson received release of information
forms from Attorney Mortis for [Mother’s] mental
health records. Supervisor Burleson then requested
records from Ms. Doherty. To date, FCDSS has not
received any records.
As of January 2022, [Mother] has not provided any
additional information or documentation to FCDSS
regarding how [Nate] received his injuries, other
than birth trauma and the incident with the car seat
that was provided to the [c]ourt at the April 12, 2019
Permanency Planning Hearing.
On   February    4,   2020,   FCDSS     received
documentation from Stokes County DSS, the county

                     -6-
            IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

              Opinion of the Court

in which [Mother] and [Father] have resided since
after the children’s removal. The documentation
shows that [Mother] told a CPS worker on
September 12, 2020, “I don’t know how he got the
injury. I guess I should have just told them my other
kid did it or something. I can’t lie.” More recently,
on June 2, 2020, [Mother] reported that she believes
that [Nate] has a medical disorder that would
account for his injuries. She reported that she
continues to believe that birth trauma could be a
cause of his injuries.
As of January 2022, [Mother] continues to report to
FCDSS that birth trauma is the cause of [Nate’s]
injuries.
c. Maintain       a   safe     and    stable   living
environment:
FCDSS went out to the home of [Father] and
[Mother] on November 24, 2021 and observed the
parents in the home with two toddlers. The home
was sufficiently baby-proofed, however there were
stacks of items throughout the home that were out
of reach of the children at that time, however, could
pose an issue as the children grow and become more
mobile. The family is making plans to repurpose
their garage into a room for the older girls to share,
there is a bedroom for the three children who remain
in [Father] and [Mother’s] custody, and a bedroom
for [Nate].
In     her     testimony,    Supervisor     Burleson
acknowledged that she observed no safety concern in
[Mother and Father’s] home. However, Supervisor
Burleson was not at the home to assess the safety
and welfare of the three children who reside with
[Mother] and [Father].        Supervisor Burleson’s
observation was that the home was a physically safe
location for the children and there were no apparent
issues with the two children who were present in the
home at the time of her visit.
d. Demonstrate the ability to meet the basic

                      -7-
                   IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                     Opinion of the Court

       needs of [Amy], [Kat], and [Nate]:
       [Nate’s paternal grandparents] report that the
       parents have provided items for the children, such
       as clothing, snacks, and toiletries and financial
       support.
       e. Demonstrate skills learned in parenting
       classes during visitation with [Amy], [Kat],
       and [Nate]:
       Per reports of the children, caregivers and parents,
       the visits have been going well and earlier in COVID
       it was harder to have visits in person. The family
       reports that they have 8 hours of visitation per week,
       however, when looking at the closing court order
       from July 2020, the parents were to get a minimum
       of 4 hours per week.
       [Nate’s paternal grandparents] have expressed that
       the 8 hours per week poses a hardship at times as
       they want to follow the [c]ourt’s order, however with
       the parents’ work schedules, 8 hours per week
       presents a challenge.           FCDSS would be
       recommending no more than 4 hours per week.
       [Mother] and [Father] try to make valuable use of
       the time to engage the older girls in activities and
       crafts. [Father], due to his work schedule at nights,
       calls the children in the morning before going to
       school and speaks with them.
....
41. Around June 2, 2020, [Mother] reported that she was
going monthly for counseling, but she stopped for two
months. At that time in regards to her sessions, [Mother]
reported that “They’re going,” “I talk to her,” and “We’re
working on stuff.” [Mother] would not provide more
information to FCDSS about what she is learning in
sessions or her therapeutic goals.
....
44. The Respondent Father . . . was ordered to comply with
all of the following in order to correct the circumstances

                            -8-
                  IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                    Opinion of the Court

which caused his child’s removal from his care and custody
and adjudication if he wished to be reunified:
      a. Notify FCDSS of any changes in address,
      telephone number, income, employment, or
      household composition within 24 hours:
      [Father] reports the only change for him is his
      employment. He is now employed . . . driving a
      forklift and currently works 2nd shift as of September
      2021.
      b. Comply with any recommendations made as
      a result of the parenting capacity assessment
      completed and provide any and all
      documentation regarding how [Nate] received
      his injuries other than birth trauma:
      [Father] reports that he continues to be engaged
      with Mr. George Hage with Counseling and
      Spirituality and going monthly.      FCDSS has
      inquired about the releases for Mr. Hage and
      [Father] reported FCDSS would have to get those
      from his attorney.
      As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS had not received
      any releases for [Father], therefore has no records
      for verification that he is attending therapy or the
      nature or goals of any therapy attended.
      [Father] has not provided any additional
      information or documentation to FCDSS regarding
      how [Nate] received his injuries, other than birth
      trauma and the incident with the car seat that was
      provided to the [c]ourt at the April 12, 2019
      Permanency Planning Hearing. [Father] concurs
      with [Mother] that [Nate] may have a medical
      condition or that the injuries in question were
      caused by birth trauma.
      c. Maintain       a   safe     and    stable   living
      environment:
      FCDSS went out to the home of [Father] and
      [Mother] on November 24, 2021 and observed the

                            -9-
                   IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                     Opinion of the Court

       parents in the home with 2 toddlers. The home was
       sufficiently baby-proofed, however there were stacks
       of items throughout the home that were out of reach
       of the children at that time, however, could pose an
       issue as the children grow and become more mobile.
       The family is making plans to repurpose their
       garage into a room for the older girls to share, there
       is a bedroom for the 2 toddler and now new infant to
       share and then a bedroom for [Nate]. The home is
       in good condition and was appropriate.
       d. Demonstrate the ability to meet the basic
       needs of [Amy], [Kat], and [Nate]:
       [Nate’s paternal grandparents] report that the
       parents have provided items for the children, such
       as clothing, snacks, and toiletries and financial
       support.
       e. Demonstrate skills learned in parenting
       classes during visitation with [Amy], [Kat],
       and [Nate]:
       Per reports of the children, caregivers and parents,
       the visits have been going well and earlier in COVID
       it was harder to have visits in person. The family
       reports that they have 8 hours of visitation per week,
       however, when looking at the closing court order
       from July 2020, the parents were to get a minimum
       of 4 hours per week. The relatives have expressed
       that the 8 hours per week poses a hardship at times
       as they want to follow the courts order, however if
       the parents’ work schedules, 8 hours per week
       presents a challenge.           FCDSS would be
       recommending no more than 4 hours per week.
       [Father] and [Mother] try to make valuable use of
       the time to engage the older girls in activities and
       crafts. [Father], due to his work schedule at nights,
       calls the children in the morning before going to
       school and after school and speaks with them.
....
46. [Father] reported to FCDSS that he continues to be

                            - 10 -
                   IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                     Opinion of the Court

engaged in counseling with Mr. George Hage and he
attends monthly.        [Father] would not provide more
information about what he is learning in sessions and or
the nature or goals of his therapy. In November 2021,
[Father] reported to FCDSS Social Work Supervisor Dana
Burleson that he doesn’t feel therapy is beneficial, stating
“It provides a little bit of help towards other topics but not
towards this situation.” FCDSS has not received releases
by [Father] to request records from Mr. Hage. FCDSS has
also reached out to his attorney for assistance in obtaining
signed releases. As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS has not
received signed releases or records from Mr. Hage. During
the hearing on February 21, 2022, [Father] provided
documentation to FCDSS regarding his work with Mr.
Hage.
....
58. FCDSS has had difficulty throughout the life of this
case in communicating with the parents. The parents have
not willingly provided information when requested by
FCDSS. Despite this difficulty, FCDSS has received
information that the parents complied with classes and
assessments.
....
105. The minor children cannot return to the home or care
of a parent immediately, within the next six months, or
within any reasonable period of time.
106. The immediate return of the minor children to the
home of a parent would be contrary to their health, safety,
and welfare.
107. Further reunification efforts would be clearly
unsuccessful and inconsistent with the minor children’s
health and safety. The children have been outside of the
parents’ home and care for approximately 1,350 days. The
cause of [Nate’s] injuries remains unknown. The causal or
contributing factors leading up to and surrounding [Nate’s]
injuries remain unknown. It is unlikely more information
will be gained by the passage of more time, and further
delay to the children’s permanence is not in their best

                            - 11 -
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                   Opinion of the Court

             interests.
             114. Pursuant to NCGS §7B-906.2, the permanent plan of
             reunification would not be successful because:
                    a. The parents have not made adequate progress
                    within a reasonable period of time towards the
                    objective of reunification. While the parents have
                    attended services, the intended purpose and benefit
                    of the services has not been achieved; IE: The
                    parents have attended therapy sessions. However,
                    the therapy sessions have not examined the causes
                    or circumstances surrounding [Nate’s] injuries while
                    in the parents’ care.
                    b. The parents have not been cooperative or
                    forthcoming with FCDSS or the GAL program.
                    FCDSS has been unable to effectively communicate
                    and gain necessary information from the parents.
                    c. The parents are present and available to the
                    [c]ourt today. The parents have not been regularly
                    available to FCDSS and the GAL outside of court.
                    d. The parents have acted in a manner that is
                    inconsistent with the health or safety of the minor
                    children. After more than 1,300 [days] outside the
                    home and care of the Respondent Parents, there is
                    no information about the cause of [Nate’s] injuries or
                    the circumstances which led to those injuries while
                    in the care of [Mother] and [Father].

      In making these findings, the trial court considered testimony from DSS Social

Work Supervisor Dana Burleson, GAL District Administrator Melissa Bell, Nate’s

paternal grandfather, Mother, and Father. The trial court also considered reports

from DSS, the GAL, and Mother. Finally, the trial court considered letters from Ann

Doherty, Mother’s therapist, and George Hage, Father’s therapist. This competent

evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact, even if there exists contradictory

                                          - 12 -
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                   Opinion of the Court

evidence in the record. In re C.M., 273 N.C. App. at 430, 848 S.E.2d at 751-52; see

also In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1, 11, 822 S.E.2d 693, 700 (2019) (“[A]n important aspect

of the trial court’s role as finder of fact is assessing the demeanor and credibility of

witnesses, often in light of inconsistencies or contradictory evidence. It is in part

because the trial court is uniquely situated to make this credibility determination

that appellate courts may not reweigh the underlying evidence presented at trial.”).

      Accordingly, the trial court did not err by ceasing reunification efforts because

its findings of fact under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2 are supported by competent

evidence.

C. Guardianship

   1. Unfitness/Acting Inconsistently with Constitutionally Protected
      Status

      Mother contends that “[t]he trial court should not have applied a best interest

standard as in doing it failed to protect [Mother’s] constitutional rights as a parent.”

Similarly, Father contends that the trial court erred by applying “the best interest of

the child standard in awarding guardianship of Nate to the paternal grandparents as

there was insufficient evidence his father was unfit or had acted inconsistently with

his constitutionally protected rights as a parent.”

      “A parent has an interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of

his or her children that is protected by the United States Constitution.” Boseman v.

Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549, 704 S.E.2d 494, 502 (2010) (quotation marks, brackets,

                                          - 13 -
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                    Opinion of the Court

and citations omitted). “So long as a parent has this paramount interest in the

custody of his or her children, a custody dispute with a nonparent regarding those

children may not be determined by the application of the ‘best interest of the child’

standard.” Id., 704 S.E.2d at 503 (citation omitted). “However, a parent can forfeit

their right to custody of their child by unfitness or acting inconsistently with their

constitutionally protected status.” In re J.M., 276 N.C. App. at 307, 856 S.E.2d at

915 (citation omitted). “Findings in support of the conclusion that a parent acted

inconsistently with the parent’s constitutionally protected status are required to be

supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. at 283, 802

S.E.2d at 597 (citation omitted).

      Here, the trial court made the following relevant findings:

             116. The Respondent [Mother] is not a fit and proper
             person to have the care, custody, and control of the minor
             children concerned.     [Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] were
             adjudicated neglected individuals after [Nate] sustained
             non-accidental injuries in the care of [Mother] and
             [Father]. The cause of and circumstances surrounding
             those injuries remain unknown and unaddressed.
             117. The Respondent [Mother] has acted in a manner that
             is inconsistent with her constitutionally protected status as
             a parent. While [Mother] has occasionally provided
             financial support and necessary items for the care of these
             three minor children, [Nate’s paternal grandparents] have
             assumed the primary responsibility for financially
             supporting and meeting the children’s needs since June 11,
             2018.
             118. The Respondent Father . . . is not a fit and proper
             person to have the care, custody, and control of the minor
             child [Nate]. [Nate] and his siblings [Kat] and [Amy] were

                                           - 14 -
                                 IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                   Opinion of the Court

              adjudicated neglected juveniles after [Nate] sustained
              non-accidental injuries in the care of [Mother] and
              [Father]. The cause of and circumstances surrounding
              those injuries remain unknown and unaddressed.
              119. The Respondent [Father] has acted in a manner that
              is inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as
              a parent.     While [Father] has occasionally provided
              financial support and necessary items for the care of
              [Nate], [Nate’s paternal grandparents] have assumed the
              primary responsibility for financially supporting and
              meeting the child’s daily needs since June 11, 2018.

Although labeled as findings of fact, the trial court’s determinations that Mother and

Father were unfit and acting inconsistently with their constitutionally protected

status are conclusions of law that we review de novo. In re Estate of Sharpe, 258 N.C.

App. 601, 605, 814 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2018) (“If the lower tribunal labels as a finding

of fact what is in substance a conclusion of law, we review that ‘finding’ as a

conclusion de novo.” (citation omitted)).

       To support these conclusions, the trial court made the following relevant

findings of fact:

              46. [Father] reported to FCDSS that he continues to be
              engaged in counseling with Mr. George Hage and he
              attends monthly.        [Father] would not provide more
              information about what he is learning in sessions and or
              the nature or goals of his therapy. In November 2021,
              [Father] reported to FCDSS Social Work Supervisor Dana
              Burleson that he doesn’t feel therapy is beneficial, stating
              “It provides a little bit of help towards other topics but not
              towards this situation.” FCDSS has not received releases
              by [Father] to request records from Mr. Hage. FCDSS has
              also reached out to his attorney for assistance in obtaining
              signed releases. As of February 18, 2022, FCDSS has not

                                            - 15 -
                   IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                     Opinion of the Court

received signed releases or records from Mr. Hage. During
the hearing on February 21, 2022, [Father] provided
documentation to FCDSS regarding his work with Mr.
Hage.
....
59. FCDSS continues to have the same primary concern
that inadequate information has been provided as to how
[Nate] was injured. Without this information, FCDSS
cannot adequately assess how to correct safety concerns in
the parents’ care or confirm that the children would now be
safe if returned to the home and care of [Mother] and
[Father].
....
92. The therapy letter provided by [Mother] reflects that
her goals in therapy were “the importance of her
professional communication even in a situation where she
reported feeling lack of control as well as confusion and
helplessness.” [Mother] acknowledged the purpose of that
goal was for her to be able to communicate with the Social
Workers about the case without becoming angry. The
second therapy goal was “adjustment to the loss of her
children.” [Mother] acknowledged the purpose of that goal
was for her to be able to manage her feelings regarding the
placement of her children in DSS custody.
93. Nothing in the letter from clinician Ann Doherty
reflects that [Mother] was working on therapy goals related
to exploring the effects of stress around the time of [Nate’s]
injuries in 2018 or exploring the circumstances
surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.
94. The letter provided by [Father] reflects that his goals
in therapy related to “developing a sense of peace and
acceptance of the separation of his three children from
him,” and managing symptoms of anxiety and “occurrences
of depression.”
95. It appears that [Father] did speak with his therapist
during two sessions on February 22, 2020 and January 15,
2022 about [Nate’s] injuries. However, it appears the
information shared was limited to the theory of the fall

                            - 16 -
                               IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                  Opinion of the Court

             from the car seat, as presented in 2019. Counselor Hage
             wrote: “[W]e have also dealt with concerns and stressors
             related to his son’s fall. [Father] reports no major incident
             or disorder with [Nate] from his birth up until the incident.
             He certainly regrets the accident happening with the child
             due to not buckling him with the seat belt into his car seat
             . . . I see the accident as something that happened in the
             split seconds of sudden distraction of two children fighting
             in the car, thereby, putting the parents in an insupportable
             position.”
             96. Nothing indicates that new information has been
             gained about the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s]
             injuries or that the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s]
             injuries were ever addressed through the Respondent
             Father’s participation in therapy.
             97. From 2019 to the present, neither [Mother] nor [Father]
             have provided a sufficient explanation about how [Nate]
             was injured while in their care, accepted responsibility for
             the injuries, or provided insight into the circumstances
             surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.
             98. In the absence of information about how [Nate]
             sustained the injuries in question and with no information
             about the causal and contributing factors surrounding
             those injuries, the [c]ourt is unable to find that the
             circumstances which led to the removal of [Nate], [Kat],
             and [Amy] from the home and care of [Mother] and [Father]
             and the children’s subsequent adjudication have been
             adequately corrected such that the children can safely
             reunify with the parents.

The trial court made these findings after considering testimony from DSS Social

Work Supervisor Dana Burleson, GAL District Administrator Melissa Bell, Nate’s

paternal grandfather, Mother, and Father; reports from DSS, the GAL, and Mother;

and letters from Ann Doherty, Mother’s therapist, and George Hage, Father’s

therapist.   Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s

                                         - 17 -
                                 IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                    Opinion of the Court

findings of fact.

       These findings of fact, in turn, support the trial court’s conclusions of law that

Mother “is not a fit and proper person to have the care, custody, and control of the

minor children” and that Mother “acted in a manner that is inconsistent with her

constitutionally protected status as a parent.” Furthermore, these findings of fact

support the trial court’s conclusions of law that Father “is not a fit and proper person

to have the care, custody, and control of the minor child” and that Father “acted in a

manner that is inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as a parent.”

   2. Best Interests Determination

       Mother contends that “[t]he trial court’s decision regarding the children’s best

interest is not supported by reason and is an abuse of the trial court’s discretionary

latitude at disposition.”    Furthermore, Father contends that the trial court’s

“determination of Nate’s best interest is not supported by reason and is an abuse of

the court’s discretion at disposition.”

       Here, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact:

              85. [Nate] entered FCDSS custody in June 2018 after
              sustaining serious, life threatening injuries due to
              non-accidental means. The cause of the injuries, as
              identified by Dr. Thomas, was blunt force trauma. [Nate’s]
              siblings [Kat] and [Amy] were present in the same home
              and in the care of the same adults as [Nate] when he was
              injured.
              ....
              87. Since the children entered FCDSS custody, [Mother]
              and [Father] have given two explanations for how [Nate’s]

                                           - 18 -
                  IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                     Opinion of the Court

injuries occurred: birth trauma and a fall from a car seat.
88. Based upon the record, the theory of birth trauma was
previously presented. The [c]ourt did not accept that
theory, as it directed the parents to present any
explanations they could offer besides birth trauma.
89. In 2019, [Father] identified a fall from a car seat onto
the ground as the cause of the injuries [Nate] sustained. In
2019, FCDSS and the GAL followed up on this reported
cause with Dr. Thomas, who advised the injuries were
highly unlikely to have been caused by such a fall and
identified blunt force trauma as the cause of the injuries.
90. At the hearing today, February 21, 2022, when asked
how [Nate] sustained the injuries in question, [Mother] did
not provide any new or additional information. [Mother]
again referenced birth trauma. [Mother] did not elaborate
as to why she believed [Nate’s] injuries resulted from birth
trauma, nor did she present any new evidence to support
the birth trauma theory.        [Mother] stated she was
unwilling to exclude birth trauma as a cause of these
injur[i]es until such time as she personally spoke to a
doctor about her beliefs.
91. At the hearing today, February 21, 2022, when asked
how [Nate] sustained the injuries in question, [Father]
denied the injuries were the result of non-accidental
trauma. He identified an accidental explanation, the fall
from the car seat as presented in 2019. [Father] did not
present any new or additional evidence or information to
support his theory that car seat incident caused the
injuries.
....
96. Nothing indicates that new information has been
gained about the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s]
injuries or that the circumstances surrounding [Nate’s]
injuries were ever addressed through the Respondent
Father’s participation in therapy.
97. From 2019 to the present, neither [Mother] nor [Father]
have provided a sufficient explanation about how [Nate]
was injured while in their care, accepted responsibility for

                            - 19 -
                                IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                                   Opinion of the Court

             the injuries, or provided insight into the circumstances
             surrounding [Nate’s] injuries.
             98. In the absence of information about how [Nate]
             sustained the injuries in question and with no information
             about the causal and contributing factors surrounding
             those injuries, the [c]ourt is unable to find that the
             circumstances which led to the removal of [Nate], [Kat],
             and [Amy] from the home and care of [Mother] and [Father]
             and the children’s subsequent adjudication have been
             adequately corrected such that the children can safely
             reunify with the parents.

             ....
             123. It is in the best interests of the minor children and will
             promote the children’s health, safety, and welfare to be
             placed into the Guardianship of [Nate’s paternal
             grandparents].
             ....
             128. The plan of care which is in the best interests of
             [Nate], [Kat], and [Amy] is for [Nate’s paternal
             grandparents] to be appointed as their Guardians, and as
             Guardians for [Nate’s paternal grandparents] to have the
             physical and legal custody of the children, with
             visitation . . . .

These findings are supported by the same competent evidence that supported the

trial court’s findings regarding reunification efforts. Accordingly, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion by awarding guardianship to Nate’s paternal grandparents.

                                III.   Conclusion

      The trial court did not err by ceasing reunification efforts, eliminating

reunification as a permanent plan, and granting guardianship of Nate, Kat, and Amy

to Nate’s paternal grandparents. Accordingly, we affirm.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          - 20 -
                    IN RE: N.T., K.M., A.C.

                      Opinion of the Court

Judges DILLON and STADING concur.

                             - 21 -