In re A.T., ___ N.C. App. ___ (November 5, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part.
Remanded in part
- Facts: Respondent Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights as to two children based on the ground of neglect. The children had been adjudicated neglected based on concerns for the parents’ mental health, substance use, employment and housing. Both parents were ordered to undergo comprehensive psychological evaluations as part of their case plan. Mother’s evaluation indicated significant psychological problems and multiple diagnoses for which she refused recommended treatment. Subsequent permanency planning findings consistently found Mother’s lack of stable employment and mental health issues remained barriers to reunification, though Mother had found stable housing. The court ultimately terminated both parents’ rights. Mother appeals, challenging several findings and the court’s determination that the evidence established a likelihood of future neglect.
- Appellate courts review the adjudication of grounds to TPR to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusion of law. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Findings supported by competent evidence are binding on appeal even if contrary evidence exists.
- 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 10 (citation omitted). When determining whether 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 11 (citation omitted). Failure to make progress on the parent’s case plan can be indicative of a likelihood of future neglect.
- Challenged findings are supported by the evidence and relevant. Though some challenged findings recite evidence (e.g., reports), some are based at least in part on testimony from the hearing. The order contains ample specific, ultimate findings to support the trial court’s conclusion that TPR grounds existed and that the trial court made an independent determination on the evidence presented. Part of the finding indicating the family had been evicted for weeks, rather than days, prior to the report to DSS is unsupported and disregarded.
- The trial court’s conclusion that Mother’s parental rights were subject to termination was supported by the findings and the findings demonstrated both past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect. Findings included that although Mother had found stable housing and had recently begun to comply with clinical recommendations with regards to her mental health, Mother inconsistently adhered to her case plan over the eighteen months between when the children were removed and the TPR hearing, had not secured stable employment, had not addressed her substance use and repeatedly tested positive for marijuana.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect