In re S.A., ___ N.C. App. ___ (September 16, 2026)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a private TPR. Petitioners-appellants are the grandparents of the two children at issue. The children lived with petitioners during Mother’s two-year period of incarceration following Mother entering an Alford plea to felony charges relating to the death of the children’s sibling. During the investigation of the sibling’s death, investigators found Mother had no history of criminal child abuse or criminal behavior prior to that child’s death and there was no evidence of Mother or her boyfriend’s neglect of the two children at issue. After Mother posted bond from the initial arrest and prior to her incarceration, Mother moved for visitation with the children, regularly engaged in therapy and completed mental health assessments, and began medication as part of her mental health treatment. During this period, Mother failed one THC screen out of several screens. At the TPR hearing in October 2025, the trial court found that Mother was making adequate progress in her case plan and was complying with court orders, visits with the children went well, and the children had bonded with her. The trial court concluded the likelihood of future neglect was not present and that grounds to TPR under G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) did not exist. Petitioners appeal the dismissal of the TPR petition.
- Appellate courts review TPR orders to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports its findings and whether the findings support its conclusion of law.
- G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) allows a trial court to TPR if the court concludes that the parent has neglected the child as defined by G.S. 7B-101(15). The trial court “consider[s] any evidence of changed conditions in light of the evidence of prior neglect and the probability of [its] repetition.” Sl. Op. at 4 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “The two most important factors in this assessment are ‘the best interests of the child[ren] and the [parent’s] fitness to care for [them] at the time of the termination proceeding.’ ” Sl. Op. at 5 (citation omitted).
- Findings of prior neglect, changed circumstances, and resulting unlikelihood of future neglect support the trial court’s conclusion that grounds did not exist to TPR under G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1). The record clearly demonstrates clear and convincing evidence that Mother at one point neglected the deceased sibling but did not similarly neglect the other two children. The record also demonstrates a progressive change in Mother’s circumstances, including Mother initiating visitation with the two children, therapist reports indicating the children are not experiencing any serious behavioral issues at home or school, Mother completing a mental health assessment and regularly taking medication as part of her mental health treatment, and an assessment by DSS of Mother’s compliance with court orders and adequate progress under the plan for reunification prior to incarceration. Mother’s “isolated positive [THC] test among far more negatives over that same period does not destroy the reunification plan here.” Sl. Op. at 8. The circumstances surrounding the children at the time of the TPR hearing support a determination that future neglect is unlikely.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect