In re J.M.V., Jr., ___ N.C. App. ___ (November 5, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Two children were adjudicated neglected and dependent due to improper care, supervision, discipline; lack of remedial care; and living in an injurious environment. The children share the same Mother but have different fathers; at the time of the events alleged in the neglect and dependency petitions, Mother and one of the children’s Fathers lived with the children in a shelter. Following adjudication, the parents were ordered biweekly supervised visitation and entered into case plans to address issues of mental health, parenting capacity, housing, and employment. During permanency planning, the court found DSS had substantiated an allegation made by the older sibling that both parents had sexually abused him. Respondents were placed on the Responsible Individuals List and did not petition for review. The court found Respondents had acted inconsistently with the health or safety of their children and ordered no visitation. The court also found Respondents had not actively engaged in or cooperated with their case plans, DSS or the GAL, and noted a decline in Mother’s physical health. DSS filed a TPR motion and both Respondents’ parental rights were terminated based on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions which led to the children’s removal, and dependency. Respondents appeal, challenging several findings of facts as unsupported and that the findings do not support adjudication of the TPR grounds.
- A TPR adjudication order is reviewed to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
- All but one of Respondents’ challenged findings of act are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, including social worker and supervisor testimony and Father’s testimony. There is no evidence to support the finding that Father denied the juveniles’ need for services to address their developmental delays. Testimony of Father and the parenting educator show Respondents acknowledged the children’s speech delays and their need for services, and had discussed the delays with the parenting educator. That finding is disregarded.
- Both Respondents failed to preserve their right to challenge on appeal the social worker and supervisor’s testimony on the grounds of hearsay regarding the sexual abuse allegations. Although respondents initially objected, they waived their prior objections when they failed to continue or renew their objections or object to similar testimony, and elicited some of the same testimony from the social worker during cross-examination. Father also did not challenge other findings of fact addressing the sexual abuse allegations, and those findings are binding on appeal.
- G.S. 7B-1101(a)(1) allows for the termination of a parent’s rights if the parent has neglected the juvenile as defined in the Juvenile Code. G.S. 7B-101(15) defines a neglected juvenile to include a juvenile whose parent “ ‘[d]oes not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline’ or ‘[c]reates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.’ ” Sl. Op. at 16-17, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15)(a), (e). When the child and parent have been separated for a period of time, neglect can be established by evidence of past neglect and the likelihood of future neglect by the parent. Failure to make progress on the case plan or to show behavioral changes necessary to ensure the safety of the juvenile can support a conclusion that there is a likelihood of future neglect. Completion of the case plan does not prevent a conclusion of likelihood of future neglect. “[P]arents are ‘required to demonstrate acknowledgement and understanding of why the juvenile entered DSS custody as well as changed behaviors.’ ” Sl. Op. at 18 (citation omitted).
- Findings support the court’s adjudication of the ground of neglect as to both Respondents. Past neglect of the child(ren) and the likelihood of future neglect if returned to the parent is supported by the findings.
- Although Father completed most components of his case plan, he continued to deny the children were neglected or acknowledge his role in their neglect; continued to challenge the sexual abuse allegations and accused the foster parents and DSS of coaching the children to make the allegations; was unable to demonstrate improved parenting skills during visits with the children after completing the parenting class; and planned to reduce services if the children were returned despite being heavily reliant on the services for daily maintenance.
- Mother made progress on her case plan, including engaging in therapy, completing a psychological evaluation, and attending to and improving her health. However, Mother continued to deny the children were neglected or acknowledge her role in their neglect; denied the sexual abuse allegations; did not demonstrate changed parenting behavior during visits after completing the parenting class; and continued to suffer ongoing medical issues that created substantial challenges to parenting. The finding that Mother has not secured economic or domestic stability is irrelevant and disregarded. A parent’s inability to care for their child on account of their poverty is not a willful failure to make reasonable progress under the circumstances for purposes of G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect