In re A.N.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (August 15, 2023)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: This is an appeal of a private TPR that mother initiated against father. In 2015, Mother initiated a Chapter 50 custody proceeding, which resulted in a custody order that granted mother primary physical custody of the child and father visitation. Father was arrested for driving while impaired and misdemeanor child abuse two years later, in December 2017, during an incident where father and his brother were found passed out from a drug overdose in a car, stopped at a red light, with the child at issue and her half-sibling in the back seat without any child seats or restraints. Mother took custody of the child from the scene; father survived, and this was the last date father saw the child. Mother filed a motion to modify the custody order, which was granted in 2020 and awarded mother sole custody, allowed paternal grandparents to intervene and awarded them visitation, and restricted father from all visitation unless the parties agreed. Mother filed a TPR petition against father in July 2021 on the grounds of willful abandonment and willful failure to pay child support ordered by the court. Conflicting evidence was presented at the adjudication hearing concerning father’s attempts to contact mother or child, mother’s obstruction of father’s attempts to contact mother or child, and father’s contribution to gifts for the child given by the paternal grandparents. The TPR was granted on the ground of willful abandonment. Father appeals for insufficient findings.
- At adjudication in TPR cases, the standard of review is “whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether these findings, in turn, support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 19 (citation omitted).
- G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7) allows the court to terminate parental rights upon a finding that “the parent has willfully abandoned the juvenile for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition or motion.” The supreme court has further stated that the ground of abandonment “implies conduct on the part of the parent which manifests a willful determination to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.” Sl. Op. at 20 (citation omitted). The determinative time period is the six months immediately preceding the filing of the TPR petition, but the court may look to a parent’s conduct outside of that time period to assess a parent’s intent and willfulness. Willfulness is a question of fact.
- Challenged findings are supported by competent evidence and other unchallenged binding findings establish abandonment. The finding addressing father’s testimony that he contributed some money toward gifts provided by the grandparents to the child but no other evidence was offered to support this testimony resolves the conflict in the evidence about father’s contributions and that he did not make any.
- “[T]he trial court is not required to make findings of fact on all evidence presented, nor state every option it considered.” Sl. Op. at 24 (citation omitted) “Even when there is evidence in the record to the contrary, ‘[i]f the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by ample, competent evidence, they are binding on appeal.’ ” Sl. Op at 25 (citation omitted).
- Findings are sufficient and support conclusion of willful abandonment. Concerning the conflicting evidence of father’s attempts to contact the child and mother’s “interposed obstacles,” “[t]he trial court reviewed both parties’ evidence and made detailed findings resolving the factual issues presented at the termination hearing, and these findings reveal the trial court ultimately concluded that the mother’s version of events [regarding father’s efforts to contact the child] was more credible.” Sl. Op. at 25. Regarding father’s argument that mother prevented access to the child, the court held that “even if there is evidence that a petitioner has attempted to prevent the respondent from having access to the minor child, if the respondent still has some means available to contact the child or establish access, the trial court may find evidence of the respondent’s willful intent to abandon the child by remaining absentee and not trying to contact the child by any means necessary.” Sl. Op. at 27. Father was not prevented from contacting mother or child in the 2020 custody order, father failed to seek modification of the custody order to reinstate visitation, and findings demonstrate father did not attempt to contact mother or child by phone, text, email, or mail, or contact mother in any way to inquire as to the child’s education, health, or safety during the determinative period.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Abandonment