In re I.M.S., ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 7, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights as to one child. The child was adjudicated neglected and dependent based on concerns for Mother’s ability to care for the child and concerns for Mother’s mental health and substance use. At the time DSS filed the underlying petition and obtained nonsecure custody, Mother and the child had been living in a van with no air conditioning for several months during the summer heat. The adjudicatory findings included that Mother had traveled from Kentucky to North Carolina with the child, was unable to secure suitable housing, was unable to provide any food for the child other than milk, and refused to go to a shelter. Custody was continued with DSS at disposition. Mother’s case plan included attending parenting classes, securing safe and suitable housing, obtaining and maintaining sufficient income, and completing a substance use and mental health assessment. During permanency planning, the court repeatedly found Mother was not making progress on her case plan and was acting inconsistently with the health and safety of the child. Ultimately the child’s primary plan was changed to adoption and DSS motioned to TPR. Mother’s rights were terminated on four grounds: neglect, willful placement outside of the home for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to removal; dependency; and involuntary termination of parental rights to another child. Mother argues the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings and conclusions that there is a likelihood of future neglect if the child were returned to Mother.
- Appellate courts review the adjudication of grounds to TPR to determine “whether the trial court’s findings of fact were based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” and “if satisfied that the record contains the requisite evidence supporting the findings of fact, . . . whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 6 (citations omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
- 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). A neglected juvenile is one 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.” G.S. 7B-101(15)(a), (e). In instances where the child and parent have been separated for a long period of time, “there must be a showing of past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect by the parent.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). “When determining whether such future neglect is likely, the [trial] court must consider evidence of changed circumstances between the period of past neglect and the time of the termination hearing.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted).
- The trial court’s findings of the child’s past neglect and likelihood of future neglect are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, including testimony of the social worker, the GAL, the child’s foster parent, and the psychotherapist who evaluated Mother, as well as the Parent Focused Parenting Evaluation (PFPE) and the GAL report. Findings included that Mother’s housing instability and lack of appropriate resources were the primary reasons for removal and the bases for the child’s underlying adjudication. Since the child’s adjudication, Mother had not engaged in recommended or referred services throughout the life of the case; was inconsistent in visiting the child; had left the state multiple times forfeiting visitation with the child; and had ultimately moved to Florida at the time of the TPR hearing. Findings were also made as to Mother’s prior history with DSS in Kentucky involving the same child, and her prior history with DSS in Florida where her five older children were removed based on concerns for substance use and her ability to care for the children, for whom her rights were ultimately terminated. The evidence shows Mother participated in the PFPE as ordered. The trial court found Mother had a low functioning IQ, was diagnosed with PTSD and substance use disorder, and lacked an understanding of her circumstances and her past. It was found that Mother would likely benefit from therapeutic intervention and further evaluation but determined these efforts would unnecessarily delay the case at a time where Mother had failed to engage in services throughout the case, failed to visit with the child, was acting inconsistent with her parental rights, had moved out of state and reunification was unlikely in six months. Mother failed to present any credible evidence of her participation in treatment or parenting classes, that she had suitable housing, or that she had gainful employment to demonstrate any change in circumstances between the child’s past neglect and the TPR hearing. The findings show that the neglect experienced by the child would repeat or continue if returned to Mother.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect