In re R.A.X., ___ N.C. App. ___ (April 2, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: DSS filed a neglect petition and obtained nonsecure custody of the child based on Mother’s inability to provide a safe home and the child living in an injurious environment. Father was subsequently identified and found to be the child’s biological father. Father is an undocumented immigrant and testified at the adjudication hearing that he was unable to provide adequate housing or care for the child due to lack of proper identification. The child was adjudicated neglected. Father was ordered, among other actions, to take parenting classes; obtain and maintain stable housing that meets the needs of the child; participate in a substance use and domestic violence assessments and follow all recommendations; obtain and maintain proper legal identification; and demonstrate an ability to meet the child’s needs. Permanency planning findings demonstrated that Father made progress on his case plan but was unable to secure stable housing despite DSS providing Father various resources. The child’s primary permanent plan was changed to adoption. DSS filed a motion to terminate Father’s parental rights based on the grounds of willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without showing that he has made reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to removal, and neglect. The trial court adjudicated both grounds. Father appeals, challenging six findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence and arguing that the trial court erred in relying solely on his immigration status as the basis for the adjudication and misapprehended the law relating to reasonable progress.
- An appellate court reviews the adjudication of grounds to terminate parental rights “to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
- G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2) allows a trial court to terminate a parent’s rights (TPR) upon finding “the parent has willfully left the juvenile in foster care or placement outside the home for more than 12 months without showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress under the circumstances has been made in correcting those conditions which led to the removal of the juvenile.” Sl. Op. at 18. A court evaluates a parent’s reasonable progress for the duration leading up to the TPR hearing. The supreme court has held that “the conditions which led to removal are not required to be corrected completely to avoid termination[,]” as only reasonable progress must be shown. Sl. Op. at 22. “[A] trial court has ample authority to determine that a parent’s extremely limited progress in correcting the conditions leading to removal adequately supports a determination that a parent’s parental rights in a particular child are subject to termination pursuant to GS 7B-1111(a)(2).” Sl. Op. at 23 (citation omitted). A parent’s deportation is neither a sword nor a shield to the termination of the parent’s rights.
- Challenged findings are supported by the evidence, including testimony of Father and the social worker and other unchallenged findings of fact. The trial court determines the weight to be given the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. The trial court properly assessed the credibility of the testimony of Father and the social worker in making its findings regarding Father’s efforts to obtain stable housing. It was reasonable for the trial court to infer that if the child were returned to Father, Father would leave the child in the care of unknown adults in the home or with Mother, based on Father’s testimony that he did not have care for the child during working hours and the social worker’s testimony that Father and Mother were still romantically involved.
- Findings support that Father failed to make reasonable progress with his case plan. The trial court did not err in terminating Father’s parental rights under G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2) based on Father’s prolonged inability to obtain stable housing that meets the needs of the child. The child’s removal was primarily based on both parents’ inability to provide adequate housing. Supported findings show Father understood Spanish completely and through the use of interpreters at the underlying proceedings (in both Spanish and his native dialect, K’iche), understood his case plan required him to obtain stable housing. Father’s living situation, for which he testified was unsuitable for a child, remained unchanged during the pendency of the underlying and TPR proceedings despite DSS providing Father information and assistance to obtain housing and legal identification specific for undocumented individuals with a criminal history. Father’s limited efforts included contacting two of the 10 or more resources DSS provided which resulted in denial of his application at one housing facility due to his criminal record. Thereafter Father took no further steps to contact any other resources provided by DSS or obtain housing, despite eventually receiving identification from his home country of Guatemala. DSS made Father aware that a formal lease agreement was not required; however, Father did not cooperate with DSS’s request to visit Father’s shared home or identify the other adults living in the home. The record shows Father’s inability to obtain housing was primarily based on his criminal record and not his immigration status or poverty. Though Father made progress in other areas of his case plan, his limited progress in obtaining suitable housing, which was the core issue that led to the child’s removal, despite being given resources and over two years to do so, was not reasonable. The court did not improperly consider whether Father could regain custody at the time of the hearing. The court addressed Father’s past and current living conditions and lack of child care in the context of determining Father’s progress to correct the housing issues that led to the child’s removal. Father’s limited progress in addressing housing, the core issue for removal, was a proper basis for the trial court to TPR and not an instance of the trial court improperly requiring Father to fully satisfy all elements of his case plan.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Willfully Leaving Child in Foster Care or Other Placement