In re M.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (February 18, 2026)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: The child at issue was adjudicated neglected and dependent due to concerns for Mother’s mental health, parenting skills, and substance use. The child was removed from Mother and visitation was ordered. During permanency planning and based on Mother’s threatening, abusive, and erratic behavior, Mother was ordered to not have contact with the child. Mother appeals the permanency planning order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in ordering no visitation.
- Dispositional orders, including visitation, are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will only be overturned “upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Sl. Op. at 8. Unchallenged findings are binding on appeal. Mother does not challenge any findings of fact in the PPO.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion when ordering Mother not to have contact with the child. The unchallenged findings show Mother’s behavior during visitation made the child uncomfortable and caused the social worker to end at least one visit 30 minutes early. This behavior included Mother being visibly agitated during visits, screaming at the child that Mother and the child’s life were in danger, recording visitation, and on one occasion, appearing confused how to exit the building. The findings also detail Mother’s history of verbal abuse, profanity, and threats of violence directed at social workers through text messages and social media, which at times were in the presence of the child and were found to have negative effects on the child. Findings also show Mother texted social workers where she appears to have been suicidal or at least threatened to commit suicide. The trial court also found Mother’s behavior at the permanency planning hearing to be erratic and that Mother stormed out of the courtroom twice. Based on the findings, the trial court determined Mother’s mental health and substance use concerns had not been resolved and contact between the child and Mother were not in the child’s best interests. The court of appeals distinguished these facts from In re J.C.-B, 276 N.C. App. 180 (2021), where the no-contact disposition was vacated because the trial court left the disposition to the discretion of the child’s therapist. Here, the trial court exercised its own discretion in making the dispositional decision.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
VisitationTopic:
Order