Court Opinion

ID: 9853345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:46:58.458859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:46.085473
License: Public Domain

HEDRICK, Judge.
The trial court in a hearing on termination of parental rights is required to “take evidence, find the facts, and . . . adjudicate the existence or nonexistence of any of the circumstances set forth in G.S. 7A-289.32. . . N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.30(d). The trial court in this case concluded that circumstances existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(2), which identifies as a ground for termination a finding that “[t]he parent has abused or neglected the child.” Respondent assigns error to this conclusion, asserting that it is not supported by the findings and the evidence.
The record indicates that DSS introduced the order of 23 January 1981 which contained the earlier court’s conclusion that respondent had neglected Christie. Also introduced was the parent-agency agreement showing Mrs. Ard’s agreement to pay support, maintain steady employment, and establish a stable residence. Laverne King, a DSS social worker, testified that Mrs. Ard had held various jobs, gone for periods of time without employment, and lived with several different friends for varying periods of time. Ms. King also testified that Mrs. Ard’s living situation began to stabilize after she married Mr. Ard and moved in with his parents. Shortly after DSS told Mrs. Ard that it would recommend a trial placement of the child with her, however, she had an argument with her husband and left the Ard residence. She remained away from 22 August 1981 to 9 September 1981. Respondent again left her husband in February 1982, shortly after learning of a possible trial placement of the child with her, and remained absent for approximately one month.
Assuming arguendo that the order of 23 January 1981 did not itself establish grounds for termination of parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(2), we nevertheless find the court’s conclusion adequately supported by the evidence. The *586neglectful conduct forming the basis for that order occurred little more than a year prior to the filing of the petition for termination. Further, the evidence supports the findings of the trial court that Mrs. Ard was unsuccessful in establishing a stable living situation in the interim, and that she continued to evidence “a propensity to let other things come before the care and responsibility of her child.” These findings provide ample basis for the court’s conclusion that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(2).
The respondent also contends that the court erred in concluding that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(4). If a conclusion that grounds exist under any section of the statute is supported by findings of fact based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the order terminating parental rights must be affirmed. In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 293 S.E. 2d 127 (1982). Because we have upheld the court’s conclusion that grounds existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(2), it is unnecessary to discuss respondent’s contention that grounds did not exist under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.32(4).
The respondent also assigns error to the trial court’s use of the same file number for both the child neglect proceedings and the termination of parental rights petition. We find it unnecessary to address this assignment of error since the respondent failed to object at the trial proceedings and properly preserve the issue for appeal. North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1); see also, 1 N.C. Index 3d, Appeal and Error Sec. 24. Furthermore, we fail to see how the respondent has been prejudiced in any way by the use of the same file number.
The respondent makes numerous assignments of error to individual findings of fact and challenges the competency and sufficiency of the evidence to support them. We have carefully reviewed the record and find all the trial judge’s findings amply supported by the evidence.
[2J The respondent argues through her Assignment of Error Nos. 4 through 11 that the trial court erred by refusing to include in its order her findings of fact. We overrule these assignments of error for two reasons. First, a trial court is required to make only those findings of fact necessary to support the judgment. In re Custody of Stancil, 10 N.C. App. 545, 179 S.E. 2d 844 (1971). Sec*587ond, a trial judge “is not bound to find facts as proposed by a party, even though there be competent evidence to support such a finding, and his rejection of the party’s tendered finding of fact may not be reversed by the appellate court and is not ground for a new trial.” Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Gill, State Treasurer, 286 N.C. 342, 355, 211 S.E. 2d 327, 336 (1975).
The respondent next assigns error to the adequacy of the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction. She argues that the court failed to make a finding, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-289.23, that it had jurisdiction under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 50A-3. The court did state in Finding of Fact No. 11 “that it has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter under the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.” This assignment of error borders on the frivolous.
Respondent’s final two assignments of error relate to (1) the trial court’s refusal to allow into evidence testimony that respondent’s mother-in-law could help the mother in the same way as a parent aid and (2) the exclusion of portions of a letter from the executive director of the Family Support Center. The respondent cites no authority for her position, nor does she demonstrate any prejudice to her case. These assignments of error are overruled.
The order terminating the parental rights of the respondent is
Affirmed.
Judge Phillips concurs.
Judge Wells dissents.