In re A.C., _ N.C. App. _ (April 1, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Vacated and Remanded

There is a dissent

in part by Tyson, J.

Facts: In September 2024, the child at issue was adjudicated neglected based on the death of the child’s older brother from hyperthermia and dehydration. In January 2025 at disposition, custody was awarded to the child’s paternal grandparents with weekly visitation to Mother and Father. Mother and Father subsequently separated, and Father faced a felony charge related to the sibling’s death. The trial court ordered reunification as the child’s primary permanent plan and Mother was assigned a case plan. In May 2025, a permanency planning order eliminated reunification with Mother, concluded Mother waived her paramount constitutional rights as a parent, awarded custody to the child’s paternal uncle, ordered weekly visitation with Mother at a time and location at the uncle’s discretion, and terminated jurisdiction. Two days later, the district court entered a custody order to the same effect. Mother appeals the permanency planning and custody orders. Mother argues that the trial court erred in determining Mother waived her constitutional rights; abused its discretion in eliminating reunification; erred in awarding custody of the child to the uncle and failed to satisfy statutory verification requirements; and improperly delegated the court’s authority to determine visitation. The verification and visitation issues are summarized separately.
Appellate courts “review a conclusion that the natural parent’s conduct was inconsistent with her constitutionally protected right de novo, and, if challenged, determine whether the findings of fact supporting that conclusion are supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). A parent waives their constitutionally protected right to the control of their child when a trial court finds the parent unfit or that the parent’s conduct is inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status as a parent. Supreme court precedent has held that “unfitness, neglect, and abandonment clearly constitute conduct inconsistent with the protected status parents may enjoy, but other types of conduct, which must be viewed on a case-by-case basis, can rise to this level . . .” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). The six challenged findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, including social worker testimony, except portions of two findings that are disregarded - one as to the number of texts from DSS unreturned from Mother and the other as to the GAL’s contact with Mother before the permanency planning hearing. The remaining, supported findings support the trial court’s conclusion that Mother waived her paramount constitutional rights. Findings show Mother had an unknown role in the death of the child’s sibling; Mother had mental health issues following the death of the child’s sibling and declined treatment; Mother frequently was unresponsive to DSS and the GAL; and that Mother had not been significantly active in the child’s life since removal.
Dispositional choices, including the trial court’s determination to eliminate reunification as a permanent plan, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. “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.” Sl. Op. at 13 (citation omitted). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining to eliminate reunification efforts with Mother. The trial court concluded returning the child home is contrary to the child’s best interests and contrary to her health and safety. These conclusions are supported by the same findings which support the trial court’s conclusion that Mother waived her constitutionally protected status as a parent, discussed immediately above, under the “far less deferential” de novo standard of review. Sl. Op. at 13. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing the child with her uncle. Findings show that although the child had a strong bond with the paternal grandparents with whom she was originally placed, they were advanced elderly with declining health concerns and the child had a bond with the paternal uncle.
Dissent: Both the PPO and custody order should be vacated in their entirety. The trial court’s conclusion that Mother is unfit or engaged in conduct which waives her constitutionally protected status as a parent is unsupported and should be vacated.