In re B.B.A, ___ N.C. App. ___ (June 4, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Adoption agency (agency) appeals the trial court’s denial of its petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. Mother and Father were in a relationship in California that resulted in Mother learning she was pregnant after joining the military and moving away. Mother informed Father of the pregnancy and her desire to place the child for adoption. Father opposed placing the child for adoption, offered support to Mother, and expressed his desire to be present at the child’s birth and raise the child. Mother gave Father the agency’s contact information and soon after ignored Father’s attempts to contact her. Father made continuous efforts to obtain custody of the unborn child, including flying from California to North Carolina seeking to speak with the agency, moving to the State for seven months, and hiring an attorney. Despite Father and his counsel’s repeated attempts, the agency refused to give Father any information. The child was born without Father’s knowledge. Mother relinquished her rights the day following the birth and the agency placed the child with a prospective adoptive family. The agency filed to terminate Father’s parental rights the day after the child’s placement. Father learned of the child’s birth nearly a month later. Subsequent paternity testing confirmed Father was the child’s biological father. Father was denied his request for visitation with the child. At the time of the termination hearing, Father had not met the child. The GAL testified that Father could accommodate and care for the child; Mother testified that there was nothing to make her think Father would not be a good father; and Father testified he had a plan for the child’s care and family support, but admitted he had not filed for legitimation or paternity prior to the agency filing the petition. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate under G.S. 7B-1111(a)(5) but concluded it was not in the child’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights. The agency challenges the trial court’s dispositional determination only, arguing four findings are unsupported by the evidence.
- Appellate courts review a trial court’s determination of whether termination of a parent’s rights is in the best interests of a child for abuse of discretion. Dispositional findings of fact are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by competent evidence.
- G.S. 7B-1110(a) requires the trial court to consider six factors in determining whether termination is in the child’s best interests and make written findings for those that are relevant. G.S. 7B-1100(a) factors include the child’s age; likelihood of adoption; whether termination will aid in achieving the child’s permanent plan (not relevant for a private TPR); the bond the child has with the parent; the quality of relationship between the child and the proposed adoptive placement; and any relevant consideration. Appellate precedent requires that “[a]fter the trial court has determined grounds exist for termination of parental rights at adjudication, the court is required to issue an order of termination in the dispositional stage, unless it finds the best interests of the child would be to preserve the parent’s rights.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
- The unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that termination was not in the child’s best interests. These findings show Father desired and made continuous efforts to obtain custody of the child both before and after the child’s birth; has a plan of care for the child and a strong support system; and had not acted contrary to his constitutionally protected right to the care, custody and control of the child. No evidence was presented to show a relationship with Father would not be in the child’s best interests, though no relationship currently exists. The trial court properly considered that the existence of grounds for termination were largely due to circumstances outside of Father’s control. “[H]aving a relationship with his or her biological parents is certainly relevant to a juvenile’s interests[,]” and though a parent’s constitutional right to custody and control of their child is not absolute, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in finding termination is not in the child’s best interests when the parent has not been found to have acted contrary to that interest and instead, has “expressed an active desire to be involved in the minor child’s life – before the minor child was born and continuing through to the present.” Sl. Op. at 13-14 (citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 262 (1983), recognizing a biological father’s opportunity to “make uniquely valuable contributions to the child’s development” if the father grasps the opportunity and responsibility). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, after properly considering and weighing the relevant factors under G.S. 7B-1110(a), that the “relevant consideration is that it is absolutely in the best interest for the minor child to be in the care, custody, and control of his father and have the opportunity to bond with his paternal biological family.” Sl. Op. at 8.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
DispositionTopic:
Best Interests Findings