In re V.S. ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCSC-44
No. 121PA21
Filed 18 March 2022
IN THE MATTER OF: V.S. and A.S.
On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) from orders entered on
28 September 2020, 29 October 2020, and 4 March 2021 by Judge W. Turner
Stephenson III in District Court, Bertie County. This matter was calendared for
argument in the Supreme Court on 18 February 2022 but determined on the record
and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the North Carolina Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
Miller & Audino, LLP, by Jay Anthony Audino, for petitioner-appellee Beaufort
County Department of Social Services.
Michelle FormyDuval Lynch for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Wendy C. Sotolongo, Parent Defender, and Annick Lenoir-Peek, Deputy Parent
Defender, for respondent-appellant mother.
BARRINGER, Justice.
¶1 Respondent appeals from orders terminating her parental rights in the minor
children V.S. and A.S. (Vincent and Ava),1 arguing that the trial court erred in
1 Pseudonyms are used in this opinion to protect the juveniles’ identities.
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
determining that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect. After careful review,
we hold that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a likelihood of
a repetition of neglect. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders terminating
respondent’s parental rights.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 Bertie County Department of Social Services (DSS)2 initiated this matter on
20 June 2017 by filing petitions alleging Vincent and Ava to be neglected and
dependent juveniles. The trial court adjudicated the children neglected juveniles,
finding that respondent “created an unsafe living environment for her children” and
lacked understanding regarding everyday functioning and parenting. Under
respondent’s care, Vincent and Ava had been exposed to pornography and domestic
violence, had been kept in “filthy” homes, had unstable living arrangements, and had
poor hygiene. At the time of the petition, Vincent and Ava were residing with
respondent in a home with “maggots under the carpet resulting from a failure to
dispose of garbage.” The trial court also adjudicated respondent to be mentally
incompetent and appointed her a guardian ad litem.
¶3 After a permanency planning hearing on 5 February 2019, the trial court
relieved DSS of reunification efforts, finding that the permanent plan of reunification
2 On 2 April 2019, the trial court allowed Bertie County Department of Social
Services’s motion to substitute Beaufort County Department of Social Services for Bertie
County Department of Social Services as a party of interest.
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
could not be implemented within the next six months because of Vincent’s and Ava’s
therapeutic and medical needs as well as respondent’s failure to participate in her
case plan or address her situation such that the children could return to her care. In
an order filed in July 2019, the trial court ordered that the primary plan be adoption,
finding that reunification in the next six months was still “not possible” due to
respondent’s inability to acquire independent living skills for her own daily
functioning and her limited cognitive functioning. DSS moved to terminate parental
rights on 5 November 2019.
¶4 At the termination-of-parental-rights hearing, DSS objected to certain
testimony by two of respondent’s witnesses, which the trial court sustained.
Respondent made an offer of proof by having each witness, on the record, answer the
same questions to which the trial court had previously sustained objections. After the
hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating that grounds existed to
terminate respondent’s parental rights to Vincent and Ava based on neglect, N.C.G.S.
§ 7B-1111(a)(1), and dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(6).
¶5 Respondent filed a notice of appeal on 24 November 2020, which was signed by
respondent and her attorney. In an order entered on 4 March 2021, the trial court
dismissed respondent’s notice of appeal for failure to have her guardian ad litem sign
the notice of appeal. On 7 April 2021, respondent filed a petition for writ of certiorari
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
requesting reinstatement of the appeal. This Court, in a 9 June 2021 special order,
allowed the petition for writ of certiorari.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
¶6 The North Carolina Juvenile Code sets out a two-step process for termination
of parental rights: an adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-
1109 to -1110 (2021). At the adjudicatory stage, the trial court takes evidence, finds
facts, and adjudicates the existence or nonexistence of the grounds for termination
set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(e). If the trial court adjudicates
that one or more grounds for termination exist, the trial court then proceeds to the
dispositional stage where it determines whether terminating the parent’s rights is in
the juvenile’s best interests. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a).
¶7 Appellate courts review a trial court’s adjudication pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a) to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent, and
convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. In re
E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019). In doing so, we limit our review to “only those
findings necessary to support the trial court’s determination that grounds existed to
terminate respondent’s parental rights.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 (2019). “A
trial court's finding of fact that is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence
is deemed conclusive even if the record contains evidence that would support a
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
contrary finding.” In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 379 (2019). Further, “[f]indings of fact
not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are
binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. at 407. We review the trial court’s
conclusions of law de novo. In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19 (2019).
B. Neglect
¶8 The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate respondent’s
parental rights to Vincent and Ava for neglect under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1). The
Juvenile Code authorizes the trial court to terminate parental rights if “[t]he parent
has abused or neglected the juvenile” as defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101. N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(1) (2021). A neglected juvenile is defined, in pertinent part for this matter, as
a juvenile “whose parent . . . [d]oes not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline
. . . [or c]reates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the
juvenile’s welfare.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15) (2021).
¶9 “[I]f the child has been separated from the parent for a long period of time,
there must be a showing of past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect by the
parent.” In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 843 (2016). “When determining whether such
future neglect is likely, the [trial] court must consider evidence of changed
circumstances occurring between the period of past neglect and the time of the
termination hearing.” In re Z.V.A., 373 N.C. 207, 212 (2019). “The determinative
factors must be the best interests of the child and the fitness of the parent to care for
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
the child at the time of the termination proceeding.” In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 715
(1984) (emphasis omitted).
¶ 10 Here, the trial court found past neglect and determined that there was “a high
likelihood of a repetition of this neglect” if Vincent and Ava were returned to
respondent’s care. Respondent does not contest the finding of past neglect but limits
her challenge to the determination that there was a likelihood of future neglect,
specifically arguing that “the [trial] court failed to properly address whether or not
[Ms.] Bunch (and other family members) . . . could assist [respondent] in preventing
future neglect.” In making this argument, respondent challenges a number of
findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence. However, even if we were to find
these findings unsupported, we are still bound by the remaining unchallenged
findings of fact which are more than sufficient to support the trial court’s
determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect.
¶ 11 The unchallenged findings do not reveal any change in circumstances
supporting the conclusion that Vincent and Ava would not be neglected in the future
if returned to respondent’s care. Instead, the findings provide overwhelming support
for the trial court’s determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect,
regardless of respondent’s challenges to other findings involving the suitability of
family members as caregivers. The relevant unchallenged findings are as follows:
38. The following facts, from the adjudication
hearing, are binding on the parties, and consist of the
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
reasons the juveniles were removed from the home.
a. [Respondent] lacks adequate housing and
has presented an identifiable pattern of unstable
living for the last twelve months, which has created
an unsafe living environment for her juveniles.
b. [Respondent]’s frequent changes in and
different living arrangements have not resulted in a
better placement due either to unsafe
neighborhoods, a failure to have basic
accommodations such as heat or air conditioning in
a mobile home, and/or a failure to have an
appropriate number of bedrooms, including one
home with no beds and all household members
sleeping in one room on the floor.
c. [Respondent]’s homes have been filthy,
including her home at the time of the filing of the
underlying petition, which was found to have
maggots under the carpet resulting from a failure to
dispose of garbage.
d. The juveniles’ personal hygiene when in
the care of [respondent] over the past [twelve]
months was poor.
e. The juveniles have been directly exposed
to domestic violence that involved [respondent]’s
live-in boyfriend cursing at her, pushing her,
spitting in her face, breaking furniture in anger, and
on one occasion threatening that “everyone got to die
one day[.”]
f. The juveniles have been exposed to
pornography in [respondent]’s home . . . .
g. Based upon the Comprehensive
Psychological Evaluation by Evans Health on
[3 May 2017], [respondent] has a history of
developmental disability that negatively impacts
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
the welfare of the juveniles. [Respondent] does not
understand many of the decisions and [judgments]
in everyday functioning and child rearing. She needs
guidance and support not only to parent her
juveniles, but also for herself to function
independently.
39. The problems in [respondent]’s home for the
juveniles consisted of the juveniles having poor hygiene,
being exposed to domestic violence, and being exposed to
pornography. Due to [respondent]’s cognitive delays, the
juveniles’ basic needs were not met.
....
48. [Respondent] has completed a
psychological/parenting capacity evaluation with Dr.
Kristy Matala. The evaluation determined that
[respondent] is not capable of parenting these juveniles.
....
51. [Respondent] has extensive and significant
cognitive limitations, which impair her ability to address
problem-solving situations.
52. [Respondent]’s cognitive limitations interfere
with her ability to independently parent her juveniles, and
she would require significant supervision and assistance in
order to parent.
53. [Respondent] has difficulty making sound
decisions for herself or her children. This fact from her
evaluation was echoed, during their testimony, by both Ms.
Bunch and Ms. Spivey, [with] which this [c]ourt concurs.
....
57. [Respondent] was administered a personality
assessment inventory (PAI) which is an objective test
measuring personality patterns and clinical syndromes.
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
58. [Respondent]’s PAI was determined to be
invalid as she responded to items inconsistently or did not
attend to items appropriately. There are several potential
reasons for this response pattern, including carelessness,
confusion, or failure to follow test instructions.
59. Dr. Matala believed that [respondent]’s
comprehension is so low that she could not understand the
PAI test questions, and this Court shares the same
concerns.
60. [Respondent] was also administered a brief
symptom inventory (BSI) designed to assess her for
psychological symptoms that have been present during the
past week.
61. During the BSI, [respondent] endorsed
experiencing significant psychological turmoil and a
variety of physical health complaints. She reported
experiencing thoughts and impulses as unwanted and
unrelenting. She seems to have unusual ideas.
62. [Respondent]’s test results were consistent with
the long-standing concerns documented in the records
about her ability to properly parent these juveniles. In real
world application, [respondent] has been unable to provide
proper care to these juveniles.
63. When interviewed as part of her parenting
capacity/psychological evaluation, it was clear that
[respondent] had difficulty understanding even simple
questions and her responses were not always logical. Her
insight and judgment appeared to be poor. [Respondent]’s
presentation is consistent with the prior court record and
her testimony at this hearing.
64. At the time of her parenting
capacity/psychological evaluation, [respondent]
complained of being hungry; however, she admittedly did
not have any money with her. [Respondent] needs
assistance with these type[s] of basic daily living
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
situations. Both of [respondent]’s own witnesses (Ms.
Bunch and Ms. Spivey), indicated that she had difficulty
budgeting and needed to be told . . . when to pay her bills.
65. [Respondent] has difficulty understanding
basic information. She does not appear to understand her
juveniles’ diagnoses or their special needs.
66. [Respondent] has no insight into why these
juveniles are in the custody of [DSS]. Based upon her lack
of insight, it is not likely that she can prevent the situations
that previously occurred from repeating, as she lacks the
ability to understand what was wrong in the first place.
....
68. [Respondent] continues to reside with Mr.
Woodley despite the concerns that have been expressed
regarding his suitability to be around these juveniles.
Knowing these concerns, [respondent] married him.
69. [Respondent] is aware that there are
allegations that Mr. Woodley inappropriately touched her
juveniles, but she denies the allegations.
....
81. The services that [respondent] ha[s] received
from Positive Generation in Christ have not resulted in her
developing insight into the current situation or the reasons
that her juveniles were removed from her care.
....
83. Since the [p]etition was filed, [respondent]’s
circumstances are such that it is likely that the juveniles
would be exposed to the same harmful environment if . . .
the juveniles were returned to her residence.
....
86. [Respondent] is not able to care for these
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
juveniles. If returned to her home, the juveniles would be
neglected; repetition of the prior neglect is foreseeable.
....
89. [Respondent] does not know [or] even
comprehend basic measures necessary to ensure the
juveniles’ safety.
These unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal and more than sufficient
to support the trial court’s determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition
of neglect.
¶ 12 Certainly, there may be situations where a parent’s reliance in part on others
to assist her in caring for her children supports a determination that there is not a
likelihood of a repetition of neglect if the children are returned to her care.
Nonetheless, the “determinative factors” in assessing the likelihood of a repetition of
neglect are “the best interests of the child and the fitness of the parent to care for the
child at the time of the termination proceeding.” In re Z.G.J., 378 N.C. 500, 2021-
NCSC-102, ¶ 26 (emphasis added) (quoting In re Ballard, 311 N.C. at 715 (emphasis
omitted)). Even if a parent relies on others for assistance in caring for her children,
the trial court must assess the fitness of the parent herself, not others, since the
parent retains ultimate authority over the child. See Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57,
60 (2001) (recognizing a parent’s “fundamental right to make decisions concerning
the care, custody, and control of his or her children” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, a
parent must be able to understand the past neglect her children suffered while in her
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
care; comprehend how to keep them safe from harm through proper care, supervision,
discipline, and provision of a living environment not injurious to their welfare; and
demonstrate an ability to do so. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15). The binding findings of
fact in this case reveal that respondent lacked this ability at the time of the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s
adjudication that a ground existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
¶ 13 Having affirmed the termination of parental rights on the ground of neglect
adjudicated by the trial court, we need not address the remaining ground of
dependency. See In re M.A., 374 N.C. 865, 875 (2020). Similarly, while respondent
preserved objections to some of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings at the
termination-of-parental-rights hearing, these objections were only relevant to the
findings of fact respondent challenged. Since we found that the unchallenged findings
were sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of past neglect, its determination
that a likelihood of a repetition of neglect exists, and its conclusion that a ground
existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights, there was no prejudice in the
exclusion of the testimony at issue even if in error. Thus, we need not address in
further detail respondent’s evidentiary arguments. Finally, because we allowed
review of this case on the merits through a petition for writ of certiorari, this case is
properly before us. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) (2021); N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1).
IN RE V.S. AND A.S.
2022-NCSC-44
Opinion of the Court
Accordingly, we need not address whether respondent’s notice of appeal was defective
to resolve this appeal.
III. Conclusion
¶ 14 The trial court did not err when it adjudicated that the ground of neglect
existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(1), and respondent does not challenge the trial court’s best interests
determination. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating respondent’s parental
rights.
AFFIRMED.