Court Opinion

ID: 9911037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 13:05:05.023636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:37.510521
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                    No. COA23-296

                             Filed 19 December 2023

Forsyth County, Nos. 18JT220, 18JT221

IN THE MATTER OF: K.N. K.N.

      Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 December 2022 by Judge

Theodore Kazakos in Forsyth County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

1 November 2023.

      Office of the Parent Defender, by Assistant Parent Defender Jacky L. Brammer,
      for the respondent-appellant.

      Forsyth County Department of Social Services, by Melissa Starr Livesay, for the
      petitioner-appellee.

      Manning Fulton & Skinner P.A., by Michael S. Harrell, for guardian ad litem.

      TYSON, Judge.

      Respondent Mother (“Respondent”) appeals from an order entered on 21

December 2022, which terminated her parental rights to two of her children. We

affirm.

                               I.     Background

      Respondent is the biological mother of Karen and Karl, who were twelve and

eleven years old respectively when Respondent’s parental rights were terminated on

21 December 2022. See N.C. R. App. P. 42(b) (pseudonyms used to protect the identity

of minors). Mother struggles to effectively manage her Bipolar Disorder condition,
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                   Opinion of the Court

which the court found has negatively impacted her ability to parent and her

relationships with her children.

      Karen and Karl were removed from Respondent’s home on 8 November 2018.

The order terminating Respondent’s parental rights was entered 21 December 2022

and summarized incidents surrounding the initial investigation of Respondent by the

Forsyth County Department of Social Services (“DSS”):

                     FCDSS received a Child Protective Services Report
             on April 26, 2018 alleging the inappropriate discipline of
             the minor child [Karen].
                     On July 12, 2018, FCDSS received a second report
             after [Karen] was seen running from the home in her
             underwear bleeding from the head.
                     On July 12, 2018, an FCDSS Social Worker
             interviewed [Karen], [Karl], and their sibling [Matthew].
             The children reported that [Respondent] had beaten them
             with a phone charger as punishment for [Matthew] having
             eaten all the cookies. [Karen] reported that [Respondent]
             had hit her in the face, arm, and back, punched her in the
             lip, and thrown her against a wall. [Karen] stated that
             [Respondent] had turned the shower on hot and was going
             to make her get in so [Respondent] could strike her while
             the water was running. [Karen] reported this was not the
             first time she and her siblings had been spanked while in
             the shower. [Karen] ran from the home to avoid this
             punishment. [Karl] and [Matthew] stated they saw
             [Karen] running out the door because she did not want to
             get beat [sic] in the hot shower. [Karl] stated a lady saw
             [Respondent] beating [Karen] and contacted law
             enforcement. [Karl] and [Matthew] stated [Respondent]
             had kicked[,] smacked, punched, and dragged [Karen] on
             the ground by the foot back to the apartment. [Karl] and
             [Matthew] told [Respondent] they ate the cookies, and
             [Respondent] assaulted them with the phone charger chord
             [sic] as a result.
                     The Social Worker observed injuries on all three

                                          -2-
                                    IN RE K.N.

                                 Opinion of the Court

            children, to include welts and broken skin on the backs of
            all three children, welts on [Karen]’s arms and chest and
            bleeding marks, and welts on [Karl]’s back and chest as
            well as old/healed marks on his back.
                   On July 13, 2018, an FCDSS Social Worker spoke
            with [Respondent], who stated that her medication for
            Bipolar Disorder was not getting her in the right place
            mentally and leaves her very tired. [Respondent] admitted
            that she physically beat and assaulted [Karen], [Karl], and
            [Matthew] and had been criminally charged with three
            counts of misdemeanor child abuse.
                   In August 2018, [Respondent] was referred to In
            Home Services. [Respondent] was asked to comply with
            Intensive In Home Services through Family Preservation
            Services, comply with mental health treatment through
            Monarch, and ensure that the children received trauma
            assessments for mental health therapy. [Respondent]
            failed to comply with Family Preservation Services, and
            the organization discontinued services and closed its case.
                   On November 8, 2018, [Respondent] was convicted
            of three counts of misdemeanor child abuse and
            incarcerated at the Forsyth County Jail. [Respondent]
            requested that the children be placed with a neighbor.
            However, that placement did not occur and [Respondent]
            did not have alternative child care arrangements for [Karl]
            or [Karen]. [Matthew]’s father picked the child up and took
            him to Erie, Pennsylvania.
                   The Mother had prior child protective services
            history dating back to 2015 for allegations of improper care
            and improper discipline.
                   At the time of the Adjudication, [Karen’s and Karl’s
            Father] was incarcerated through the Somerset,
            Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

      The first adjudication and disposition hearing was held on 1 February 2019,

wherein the trial court adjudicated Karen and Karl as abused, neglected, and

dependent juveniles, with the order entered on 1 March 2019. Respondent was

required to complete the following tasks to achieve reunification with her children:

                                        -3-
                                     IN RE K.N.

                                  Opinion of the Court

(1) “[c]omplete a Family Service Agreement and visitation plan with FCDSS,” (2)

“[c]omplete a Parenting Capacity Assessment/Psychological Evaluation and follow all

recommendations[,]” (3) “[c]omplete parenting classes at [ ] Parenting Path, PACT,

or another approved program[,]” (4) [o]btain and maintain stable housing[,]” and, (5)

“[d]emonstrate the ability to meet the basic and therapeutic needs of the children.”

      Several permanency planning hearings were held between the initial

adjudication and the hearing terminating Respondent’s parental rights. Respondent

completed the parenting assessment. Respondent’s case plan also required her to

complete the following recommendations, as were identified in the termination order:

             29. The recommendations of the Respondent Mother’s
             Parenting Capacity Evaluation which was completed on or
             about May 14, 2019 by Dr. Bennett, were adopted and
             ordered by the Court as part of [Respondent]’s case plan.
             The Respondent Mother was therefore also required to:

                   a. Re-engage with Monarch, keep appointments as
                   scheduled, and take medications as prescribed.
                   [Respondent] was encouraged to contact Monarch as
                   they have funding which allows them to treat
                   individuals like [Respondent], who do not have
                   insurance or financial resources.

                   b. Work with a counselor to help her review and
                   challenge her irrational and distorted thinking so
                   that she can begin to stabilize her life. Dr. Bennett
                   believed cognitive approaches including rational
                   emotive therapy would be effective models for
                   working with [Respondent].

                   c. Participate in parenting classes to learn more
                   appropriate skills to respond to her children in a
                   manner that is less aggressive and more effective.

                                         -4-
                             IN RE K.N.

                          Opinion of the Court

            d. Work with FCDSS and others with the goal of
            stabilizing her environment in terms of housing and
            finances.

            e. Work to expand her support network, which
            should include challenging some of her distorted
            beliefs about how she should never lean on anyone
            else.

            f. Attend the COOL program to help manage her
            aggressive impulses.

            g. Complete random drug testing, with no-shows or
            refusals being counted as positive tests.

      30. As reflected by the Permanency Planning Hearing from
      June 12, 2020, the order from which was filed on July 6,
      2020, the Court also required [Respondent] to participate
      in the WISH program and substance abuse treatment.

      31. Additionally, following a Permanency Planning
      Hearing from a hearing occurring on December 12, 2020,
      January 6, 2021, and March 3, 2021, the order from which
      was the order entered April 15, 2021, the Court required
      the Respondent Mother to:

            a. Engage in all of [Karen]’s treatment team
            meetings and provide information as requested by
            the team. However, there shall be no direct contact
            between [Respondent] and [Karen] unless [Karen]’s
            therapeutic providers determine it to be beneficial
            for the minor child.

            b. Sign release of information forms that allow
            [Karen]’s therapeutic treatment team to obtain
            [Respondent]’s treatment records from WISH,
            Monarch, and COOL.

A Motion to Terminate Parental Rights was filed against Respondent on 16

                                 -5-
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                 Opinion of the Court

June 2021, citing the grounds in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and

(a)(6). Termination of parental rights hearings were held over four months on 18 July

2022, 1 August 2022, 1 September 2022, and 19 October 2022. The court made

extensive findings of fact following the admission of numerous pieces of evidence and

the testimony of several witnesses.

      The trial court’s order found the following: (1) Respondent was pregnant; (2)

Respondent was “not receptive” to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, as required by her

case plan; (3) Respondent had terminated her treatment with her therapist; (4)

Respondent had not consistently taken her Bipolar Disorder medication throughout

the life of the case; (5) Respondent was “not currently taking mental health

medication, and [wa]s unlikely to be able to do so for some period of time up to and

after the baby’s birth”; and (6) Respondent picked up her son, Matthew, from

Pennsylvania, which was concerning because DSS’ investigation in 2018 revealed

Respondent had “allowed [Matthew] to take part in the over-discipline of [Karl] and

[Karen] and that [Matthew] choked and beat up his sister [Karen].”

      The court adopted several findings of fact from previous permanency planning

orders, which were entered on 1 March 2019, 6 July 2020, 15 April 2021, 18 July

2021, and 18 July 2022. The court entered the final order terminating Respondent’s

parental rights on 21 December 2022.

      Based upon the evidence presented at the termination of parental rights

hearings and the incorporated findings and conclusions contained in the previous

                                         -6-
                                     IN RE K.N.

                                  Opinion of the Court

permanency planning orders, Respondent’s parental rights to Karen and Karl were

terminated for abuse, neglect, and for leaving her children in custody for more than

twelve months without making reasonable progress towards correcting the

circumstances that caused the children’s removal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-

1111(a)(1) and (2) (2021).

      The trial court held termination of parental rights pursuant to the grounds in

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) and (a)(6) had not been adequately proven, and it

dismissed those grounds as a basis to terminate Respondent’s parental rights.

      The trial court explained its reasoning in the following findings of fact:

             120. Based upon a showing of clear, cogent, and convincing
             evidence, grounds have been proven to terminate the
             parental rights of the Respondent Mother [ ] in and to the
             minor children pursuant to NCGS § 7B-1111(a)(1), the
             ground of abuse. [Respondent] created a substantial risk
             of serious physical injury to the children by other than
             accidental means through the practice of “whooping” the
             children with cords in the running shower, which resulted
             in injuries including bleeding welts on the children’s
             bodies. Further, [Respondent]’s conduct constituted cruel
             and grossly inappropriate procedures for the modification
             of the children’s behavior.

             121. Based upon a showing of clear, cogent, and convincing
             evidence, grounds have been proven to terminate the
             parental rights of the Respondent Mother [ ] in and to the
             minor children pursuant to NCGS § 7B-1111(a)(1), the
             ground of neglect. [Respondent]’s mental health was a
             contributing factor to the circumstances surrounding the
             children’s removal and adjudication as abused and
             neglected juveniles. [Respondent] has not consistently
             engaged in mental health treatment during the 41 months
             since Disposition. She has been non-compliant with

                                         -7-
                        IN RE K.N.

                    Opinion of the Court

mental health medication and [ ] cannot currently take her
medication as prescribed. [Respondent] has expressed
distrust of treatment providers and terminated a long-term
therapeutic relationship with Ms. Connelly when Ms.
Connelly sought to move forward in therapy. [Respondent]
has recently voiced that she did not feel she had learned
anything useful during her therapy. Based upon her
demeanor during her testimony, [Respondent] either fails
to appreciate the serious nature of her conduct in abusing
and neglecting the children or she wishes to move on and
regard this as all past while her children continue to
struggle with the traumatic consequences of her actions.
Additionally, [Respondent] has not achieved stability with
regard to her household and overall circumstances.
[Respondent] has suddenly returned her older son,
[Matthew], to her home, is expecting a baby in the near
future, and has a newly obtained house and job. Based
upon all of the foregoing, the likelihood that the children
would be neglected if returned to her care is high.

122. Based upon a showing of clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence, grounds have been proven to terminate the
parental rights of the Respondent Mother [ ] in and to the
minor children pursuant to NCGS § 7B-1111(a)(2), the
ground that she has willfully left the minor children in
custody for more than 12 months without showing to the
satisfaction of the Court that she has made reasonable
progress towards correcting the circumstances that caused
the children’s removal. [Respondent] has participated to a
degree in therapy, but when her therapist Ms. Connelly
sought to progress in treatment, [Respondent] chose to
terminate a 4-year therapeutic relationship.         When
[Respondent] was confronted by information she disliked
in conversation with Social Worker Baker or others, she did
not respond well. [Respondent] opted to terminate her
involvement with WISH, despite her acknowledged use of
marijuana at that time, because she did not trust the
counselor. These facts show that [Respondent] may have
engaged in services to a degree, but a meaningful change
in the circumstances that caused or contributed to the
children’s removal has not occurred. [Respondent] has not

                           -8-
                                          IN RE K.N.

                                       Opinion of the Court

             adequately prepared herself to meet the mental and
             emotional health needs of her children, nor has she created
             the stable living environment which has proven beneficial
             to both children.

       The trial court also concluded: “Pursuant to NCGS § 7B-1110, it is in the best

interests of the minor children that the parental rights of [ ] Respondent[ ] [Mother

and Father] be terminated so that the minor children’s primary permanent plan of

adoption can move forward.” Respondent filed a timely notice of appeal. Karen’s and

Karl’s biological father, whose rights were also terminated, does not appeal the trial

court’s order. The order is final as it relates to his parental rights.

                                 II.      Jurisdiction

       Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b) and 7B-

1001(a)(7) (2021).

                                       III.   Issues

       Respondent challenges several findings of fact and argues those findings of fact

are not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. She argues without

those findings of fact, the trial court’s termination of her parental rights pursuant to

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) cannot be supported by the remaining findings

of fact.

       Respondent lastly asserts the trial court abused its discretion by terminating

her parental rights to Karen and Karl, because termination was not in either of their

best interests.

                                              -9-
                                       IN RE K.N.

                                    Opinion of the Court

                     IV.    Challenged Findings of Fact

      Respondent argues several findings of fact were not supported by, or are

contrary to, the evidence presented at the hearing. She challenges the findings of

fact regarding: (1) the period of time Respondent was compliant versus noncompliant

with her case plan from the time the children were taken away in 2018 to the hearings

held in 2022; (2) Respondent’s feelings and attitude towards therapy and her

progress; (3) Respondent’s compliance and diligence with taking the medication to

treat her Bipolar Disorder; (4) Respondent’s involvement with Karen’s mental health

treatment; (5) the validity of Mother’s healthcare plan; (6) the description of

Matthew’s return to Respondent’s home as “sudden”; (7) Respondent’s reactions when

confronted with information she disliked; (8) her decision to stop attending substance

abuse classes given her negative drug screenings; and, (9) the trial court’s concerns

regarding Respondent’s stability.

                              A. Standard of Review

      “We review a trial court’s adjudication [to terminate parental rights] under

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent

and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” In re

E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392, 831 S.E.2d 49, 52 (2019) (citation and quotation marks

omitted). “The trial court’s supported findings are deemed conclusive even if the

record contains evidence that would support a contrary finding.” In re L.D., 380 N.C.

766, 770, 869 S.E.2d 667, 671 (2022) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

                                           - 10 -
                                       IN RE K.N.

                                    Opinion of the Court

      Unchallenged findings of fact are presumed to be supported by sufficient

evidence and are binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408

S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991) (“Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial

court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding

on appeal.” (citations omitted)).

                                      B. Analysis

      In a termination of parental rights hearing, “[t]he burden in such proceedings

shall be upon the petitioner or movant and all findings of fact shall be based on clear,

cogent, and convincing evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(f) (2021). When a

challenged finding of fact is not necessary to support a trial court’s conclusions, those

findings “need not be reviewed on appeal.” See In re C.J., 373 N.C. 260, 262, 837

S.E.2d 859, 860 (2020) (citation omitted).

      Here, properly-admitted testimony and other relevant and substantial

evidence in the record exists to support each of the legally-necessary findings of fact

Respondent challenges on appeal. In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at 392, 831 S.E.2d at 52; In

re L.D., 380 N.C. at 770, 869 S.E.2d at 671. Respondent’s arguments challenging

several of the trial court’s findings of facts are without merit.

      Respondent also argues several of the findings of fact she challenges are based

upon judicially-noticed facts from prior orders. Respondent relies upon the reasoning

in In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 831 S.E.2d 54 (2019), and argues judicially-noticed

evidence may only support a finding of fact in a current order when it is supported by

                                           - 11 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                   Opinion of the Court

new evidence received at the adjudicatory hearing.

      While a trial court “may not rely solely” on judicially-noticed evidence from

prior hearings or rely on evidence from “prior dispositional orders, which have a lower

standard of proof[,]” a trial court may use testimony from former hearings to

corroborate additional testimony received at the current adjudicatory hearing. Id. at

410, 831 S.E.2d at 60 (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). A trial court “must

receive some oral testimony at the hearing and make an independent determination

regarding the evidence presented.” Id. (citation omitted).

      The trial court received additional testimony to corroborate the judicially-

noticed facts and made an independent determination regarding the new evidence

presented at the hearings. Id. at 410, 831 S.E.2d at 60-61 (“The trial court’s findings

of fact appear to be based, at least in part, on testimony provided at the hearing,

sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court made an independent determination

regarding the evidence presented. . . . [W]e conclude that respondent’s argument is

without merit.”). Respondent’s argument is overruled.

                     V.    Termination of Parental Rights

      “[A]n adjudication of any single ground for terminating a parent’s rights under

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a) will suffice to support a termination order. . . . [I]f this Court

upholds the trial court’s order in which it concludes that a particular ground for

termination exists, then we need not review any remaining grounds.” In re J.S., 374

N.C. 811, 815, 845 S.E.2d 66, 71 (2020) (citations omitted).

                                          - 12 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                   Opinion of the Court

                            A.     Standard of Review

      This Court reviews a trial court’s adjudication of grounds to terminate parental

rights by examining “whether the court’s findings of fact are supported by clear,

cogent[,] and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions

of law. Any unchallenged findings are deemed supported by competent evidence and

are binding on appeal. The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” In

re T.B., 380 N.C. 807, 812, 870 S.E.2d 119, 123 (2022) (quoting In re Z.G.J., 378 N.C.

500, 508-09, 862 S.E.2d 180, 187 (2021)).

                                     B. Analysis

      Our general statutes limit the grounds to terminate parental rights to a

specific set of statutorily-defined grounds.       N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a) (2021).

Under the second prong, a trial court may terminate parental rights after:

             The parent has willfully left the juvenile in foster care or
             placement outside the home for more than 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 the
             removal of the juvenile. No parental rights, however, shall
             be terminated for the sole reason that the parents are
             unable to care for the juvenile on account of their poverty.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2).

      Our Supreme Court has outlined the analysis trial courts must perform before

terminating a parent’s parental rights pursuant to this ground:

             Termination under this ground requires the trial court to
             perform a two-step analysis where it must determine by

                                          - 13 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                  Opinion of the Court

             clear, cogent, and convincing evidence whether (1) a child
             has been willfully left by the parent in foster care or
             placement outside the home for over twelve months, and
             (2) the parent has not made reasonable progress under the
             circumstances to correct the conditions which led to the
             removal of the child.

In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 95, 839 S.E.2d 792, 797 (2020) (emphasis supplied) (citation

omitted).

      “[A] respondent’s prolonged inability to improve her situation, despite some

efforts in that direction, will support a finding of willfulness regardless of her good

intentions, and will support a finding of lack of progress . . . sufficient to warrant

termination of parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2).” In re J.W., 173 N.C. App.

450, 465-66, 619 S.E.2d 534, 545 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). “Leaving a child in foster care or placement outside the home is willful

when a parent has the ability to show reasonable progress, but is unwilling to make

the effort.” In re A.J.P., 375 N.C. 516, 525, 849 S.E.2d 839, 848 (2020) (citation,

internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

      Our Supreme Court has stated:

             Parental compliance with a judicially adopted case plan is
             relevant in determining whether grounds for termination
             exist pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). However, in
             order for a respondent’s noncompliance with her case plan
             to support the termination of her parental rights, there
             must be a nexus between the components of the court-
             approved case plan with which the respondent failed to
             comply and the conditions which led to the child’s removal
             from the parental home.

                                         - 14 -
                                     IN RE K.N.

                                 Opinion of the Court

In re J.S., 374 N.C. at 815-16, 845 S.E.2d at 71 (citation, internal quotation marks,

and alterations omitted).

      The Court has further explained that compliance with case plan conditions are

relevant, “provided that the objectives sought to be achieved by the case plan

provision in question address issues that contributed to causing the problematic

circumstances that led to the juvenile’s removal from the parental home.” In re

T.M.L., 377 N.C. 369, 379, 856 S.E.2d 785, 793 (2021) (citation and quotation marks

omitted).

      Here, Respondent’s parental rights to Karen and Karl were terminated for

failure to implement “meaningful change in the circumstances that caused or

contributed to the children’s removal” because she had “not adequately prepared

herself to meet the mental and emotional health needs of her children, nor has she

created the stable living environment which has proven beneficial to both children.”

      One of the biggest factors in the removal of Karen and Karl was Respondent’s

violence and actions toward the children due to her inability to manage her Bipolar

Disorder condition and the negative ways her mental health condition caused her to

find fault and discipline Karen and Karl.         Respondent admitted she did not

consistently take prescribed medication to treat or manage her Bipolar Disorder

condition. During the termination for parental rights hearing, she further admitted

she had ceased taking her Bipolar Disorder medication when she became pregnant.

      Respondent failed to create and maintain a stable living environment for both

                                        - 15 -
                                       IN RE K.N.

                                    Opinion of the Court

children without also actively treating and managing her behaviors resulting from

her mental health condition. “[T]he objectives sought to be achieved by the case plan

provision in question address issues that contributed to causing the problematic

circumstances that led to the juvenile[s’] removal from the parental home.” Id.

(citation and quotation marks omitted). The trial court did not err by terminating

Respondent’s parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2).

                              VI.     Best Interests

      Respondent argues the trial court abused its discretion by holding termination

was in Karl’s best interest, because Karl had expressed a desire to live with

Respondent. She similarly argues termination was not in Karen’s best interest. The

trial court based its decision on Respondent’s failure to participate in Karen’s

treatment. Respondent asserts Karen’s placement in forty foster homes while in

DSS custody demonstrates Karen’s instability, and terminating Respondent’s

parental rights would not be helpful to Karen.

                              A. Standard of Review

      “We review the trial court’s dispositional findings of fact to determine whether

they are supported by the evidence received during the termination hearing[.]” In re

S.C.C., 379 N.C. 303, 313, 864 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2021) (citation omitted). “The trial

court’s assessment of a juvenile’s best interests at the dispositional stage is reviewed

for [an] abuse of discretion.” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at 392, 831 S.E.2d at 52 (citation

omitted). “Under this standard, we defer to the trial court’s decision unless it is

                                           - 16 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                  Opinion of the Court

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

result of a reasoned decision.” In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787, 791, 845 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2020)

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

                                    B. Analysis

      “If a trial court finds one or more grounds to terminate parental rights under

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a), it then proceeds to the dispositional stage, at which it

determines whether terminating the parent’s rights is in the juvenile’s best interest.”

In re A.E., 379 N.C. 177, 184, 864 S.E.2d 487, 495 (2021) (citations, quotation marks,

and alterations omitted). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a) provides a list of factors trial

courts must consider, including the child’s age, their likelihood of being adopted,

whether termination will result in accomplishing the permanent plan established for

the child, the child’s bond with their parent, the child’s bond with any proposed

adoptive parent or guardian, and a catch-all provision encompassing any other

relevant consideration.

      The trial court addressed all statutory factors required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-

1110(a). The trial court made findings about Karen and Karl’s age and Respondent’s

inability to provide and maintain a safe and stable home. The trial court made

findings regarding the likelihood of Karen and Karl being adopted and whether

termination of Respondent’s parental rights would accomplish their permanent plan:

             125. The Court makes the following findings consistent
             with the requirements enumerated in NCGS § 7B-1110:

                                          - 17 -
                                     IN RE K.N.

                                 Opinion of the Court

                  ...

                  c. [Karl] has been in a stable placement with the
                  same licensed foster family since November 2018,
                  when he entered FCDSS custody. This family has
                  expressed commitment to [Karl] and a desire to
                  adopt him. Both FCDSS and the GAL regard it as
                  likely that [Karl] will be adopted if he is legally free.
                  The likelihood that [Karl] will be adopted is high.

                  d. [Karen] has lacked a stable placement and has
                  frequently required increases in therapeutic care,
                  including periodic hospitalizations. [Karen] has
                  clearly shared with her GAL that she wishes to have
                  a family, and that she wants that family to include
                  her and an older married couple. [Karen] has shown
                  the ability to form a bond and attachment with a
                  former foster family, those fosters being an older
                  couple. The former foster family has continued to
                  maintain contact with [Karen] during her current
                  placement in a residential treatment setting.
                  FCDSS and the GAL are hopeful that, with changes
                  in [Karen]’s medication and continued therapy, this
                  can be a potential adoptive home. While the
                  immediate adoption of [Karen] is unlikely, she
                  wishes to have a family and has shown an ability to
                  bond, and therefore adoption is possible.

                  e. The current primary plan for both children is the
                  plan of adoption, and termination of parental rights
                  will aid with the accomplishment of that plan.

      The court also made the following findings regarding Karen’s and Karl’s

relationship with Respondent:

                  g. [Karl] has a bond with his Mother, [Respondent].
                  This bond, as described by the GAL and the Social
                  Worker, is a “fun bond” associated with having fun
                  within the context of the safety and structure
                  provided in supervised visitation.      [Karl] has

                                        - 18 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                  Opinion of the Court

                    repeatedly expressed a desire to remain in the home
                    and care of his foster parents. [Karl] made a recent
                    statement, after learning about [Respondent]’s
                    current pregnancy, that he wanted to live with his
                    Mother. However, this also happened around a time
                    [Karl] was experiencing frustration with the rules
                    and limitations of his foster home. Since that time,
                    he has also stated he wished to remain with his
                    foster parents. While the Court finds a bond exists
                    between [Karl] and [Respondent], it is more
                    accurately described as a bond of friendship or
                    kinship than a parent-child bond.

                    ...

                    i. [Karen] does not have a bond or connection with
                    [Respondent]. [Karen] has made statements that
                    she loves her Mother [Respondent] and forgives her
                    Mother, but has been consistent in stating that she
                    does not want to have a relationship with her
                    Mother or return to [Respondent]’s care.

      Respondent has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion by holding

termination of her parental rights was in Karen’s and Karl’s best interests. N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 7B-1110(a). See also In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at 392, 831 S.E.2d at 52. Her

argument is without merit.

                               VII.   Conclusion

      Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports each of the legally relevant

and necessary findings of fact Respondent challenged on appeal. N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 7B-1109(f); In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at 392, 831 S.E.2d at 52; In re L.D., 380 N.C. at

770, 869 S.E.2d at 671.; In re C.J., 373 N.C. at 262, 837 S.E.2d at 860.

                                         - 19 -
                                      IN RE K.N.

                                   Opinion of the Court

      The trial court received additional testimony to corroborate the judicially-

noticed facts from prior orders and made independent determinations regarding the

new evidence presented. In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. at 410, 831 S.E.2d at 60-61.

      Respondent’s failure to acknowledge, adequately address, and manage her

behaviors toward the children resulting from her Bipolar Disorder condition led to

Karen’s and Karl’s removal from her home. The trial court found Respondent had

been provided many opportunities and extensions to address these conditions and did

not err by terminating Respondent’s parental rights for her willful failure to make

reasonable progress toward her case plan objectives. These objectives relate the

reasons for the children’s removal to Respondent’s lack of treatment and

management of her mental health disorder. In re T.M.L., 377 N.C. at 379, 856 S.E.2d

at 793.

      If one ground for the termination of Respondent’s parental rights exists, we

need not address the remaining two grounds. In re J.S., 374 N.C. 811, 815, 845 S.E.2d

66, 71 (2020).

      The trial court properly addressed all statutory factors outlined in N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 7B-1110(a). Respondent has not shown any abuse of discretion in its holding

termination was in Karen’s and Karl’s best interest. See In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. at

392, 831 S.E.2d at 52. The trial court’s order is affirmed. It is so ordered.

      AFFIRMED.

      Judges MURPHY and COLLINS concur.

                                          - 20 -