In re L.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 4, 2026)
Held:
Vacated and Remanded
- Facts: Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willfully leaving the child in foster care for 12 months without making reasonable progress, and dependency. In an underlying juvenile proceeding, the child was adjudicated neglected and dependent. At the time of the disposition in that case, Father was incarcerated in the county jail and was ordered to comply with the 15-part case plan. Four years later, at a permanency planning hearing, the trial court found Father had been sentenced on federal charges to 33 years of incarceration; had not entered into a case plan with DSS or responded to DSS attempts to contact him; or provided any support or care for the child or visited with the child since before the child’s adjudication. The court ordered a primary plan of adoption with secondary plans of reunification and guardianship. DSS filed a TPR petition, which was granted. Father argues the trial court erred in concluding grounds existed to TPR under G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (a)(2) because the trial court improperly based its conclusion almost entirely on Father’s incarceration.
- Appellate courts review a TPR order to determine “whether the findings of fact are supported by clear[] and convincing evidence and whether those findings of fact support its conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 5 (citation omitted).
- Challenged findings are unsupported by the evidence and are disregarded.
- G.S. 7B-1111(a)(6) allows the trial court to TPR where the parent “is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile, such that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B-101, and that there is a reasonable probability that the incapability will continue for the foreseeable future.” Findings for this ground “must address [at the time of the TPR hearing] both (1) the parent’s ability to provide care and supervision, and (2) the availability to the parent of alternative child care arrangements.” Sl. Op. at 13 (citation omitted). While incarceration cannot be the sole factor, trial courts can consider “the substantial length of [the parent]’s sentence, its effect upon the minor children, the minor children’s physical and emotional well-being, and [the parent]’s lack of appropriate alternative placements for the children.” Sl. Op. at 12 (citation omitted). Appellate precedent holds that “extended period of incarceration can render a parent incapable of providing sufficient care and supervision of a minor child.” Sl. Op. at 13 (citation omitted).
- The trial court’s findings that Father faces a minimum of ten years of incarceration are sufficient to support the determination that Father is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the child and there is a reasonable probability the incapability will continue for the foreseeable future. However, the trial court made ultimate findings that Father lacked appropriate alternative child care arrangement without finding any evidentiary facts to support this determination. Although the TPR order incorporated the findings and conclusions from the juvenile adjudication and disposition orders regarding a lack of appropriate alternative child care, those orders were from six years prior. There were no findings to reflect whether Father had an alternative appropriate child care arrangement at the time of the TPR hearing. The dependency ground is remanded for further findings based on the evidentiary record.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Dependency