In re M.L.H., _ N.C. _ (June 4, 2025)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed

Facts: The child at issue was adjudicated neglected based on Mother’s inability to provide proper care and supervision and unsafe living conditions. The child was placed with foster parents and continued to reside in that placement throughout the case. Mother relinquished her parental rights to the child. After court-ordered DNA testing, the father’s paternity was established by the court Father was incarcerated in Illinois and participated in permanency planning hearings remotely. The court adopted a primary plan of reunification and a secondary plan of guardianship with the foster parents. Permanency planning findings showed Father was incarcerated in Illinois but was scheduled and ultimately released on parole; Father had plans to live with a relative and desired to reunite with the child; the child was thriving living with the foster parents; and the foster parents were the only home the child had ever known over the three-year duration of the proceedings. Ultimately the trial court awarded guardianship to the child’s foster parents after Father voluntarily returned to incarceration rather than remain on parole. Father filed written notice of appeal. Father’s counsel filed a no-merit brief stating the single issue for appellate review was whether the court abused its discretion by awarding guardianship to the foster parents. Father did not submit any written arguments.
Orders ceasing reunification efforts are reviewed “to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). Dispositional decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
To eliminate reunification, findings under G.S. 7B-906.2(b) and (d) are required. “The trial court exercises discretion when making written findings under section 7B-906.2(b) but is required to make written findings for the factors that demonstrate the degree of a parent’s progress, or lack thereof, toward reunification.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citing In re L.L., 386 N.C. 706 (2024)).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ceasing reunification efforts with Father. The trial court concluded continued reunification efforts would be clearly futile and unsuccessful. Its conclusion was supported by required findings under G.S. 7B-906.2(d)(1)-(4) demonstrating Father’s lack of progress toward reunification. Those findings include that Father made inadequate progress toward his case plan within a reasonable period of time and failed to actively participate in the plan or cooperate with the GAL; Father was not consistently available to the GAL though made himself available to the court; Father acted inconsistently with the child’s health and safety in his decision to return to incarceration instead of continuing to work on his case plan; and that continued reunification efforts were inconsistent with the child’s need for a safe and permanent home since placement with Father was not possible within six months of the PP hearing.
The trial court properly considered Father’s incarceration. A parent’s incarceration alone cannot support the trial court’s decision to cease reunification with the parent. “The degree to which a parent’s incarceration supports the trial court’s decision to cease reunification depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the length of incarceration and . . . whether it was voluntarily undertaken.” Sl. Op. at 9. Here, Father’s choice to return to incarceration instead of continuing to work towards reunification with the child “demonstrated a lack of genuine commitment to reunification and was the ultimate manifestation of neglect.” Sl. Op. at 11. Father’s decision to return to incarceration created the barriers that prevented him from achieving his case plan goals and is a proper consideration of the court under the circumstances.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding guardianship of the child to the foster parents. Findings show the child had lived with the foster parents since infancy; had never met Father; was thriving and meeting all developmental milestones; and had only known the foster parents’ home. The foster parents testified that they understood the legal significance of guardianship and that they have adequate resources to care for the child in compliance with G.S. 7B-906.1(j). The foster parents further testified that they are committed to facilitating a relationship between the child and Father. These findings show the court awarded guardianship based on the child’s best interests.