Opinion
No. 07-1409.
Filed April 15, 2008.
Mecklenburg County Nos. 05JT365, 05JT366.
Appeal by respondent from order entered 16 August 2007 by Judge Lisa C. Bell in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 2008.
Mecklenburg County Attorney's Office, by Tyrone C. Wade, for petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Youth and Family Services. Janna D. Allison, for respondent-mother appellant. Parker Poe Adams Bernstein, LLP Steven D. Hardgrave, for guardian adlitem.
The detailed findings of the trial court support its conclusion that respondent-mother neglected the minor children, and the order terminating her parental rights is affirmed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent is the mother of E.G.F. and T.S.F. Mecklenburg County Youth and Family Services ("YFS") became involved with the family in 2000. YFS filed a juvenile petition on 12 April 2005 alleging neglect and dependency. The issues raised in the petition were unstable housing, domestic violence, lack of proper hygiene of the children, and inappropriate supervision. Upon filing of the petition, YFS was granted non secure custody, and the children were placed in separate foster homes. Respondent participated in a mediation with YFS on 6 May 2005 during which a case plan was established and respondent acknowledged the problems that were listed in the petition which led to the removal of the children from her home.
On 10 May 2005 the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent and ordered respondent to comply with the mediated case plan by: (1) completing a parental capacity evaluation, (2) addressing employability issues through vocational rehabilitation or other resources, (3) maintaining safe and appropriate housing, (4) maintaining contact with a social worker, (5) complying with the visitation schedule determined by the trial court, and (6) complying with recommendations regarding mental health treatment and domestic violence counseling from a prior assessment made through the Families in Recovery to Stay Together (F.I.R.S.T.) program.
The trial court entered review orders on 15 July 2005, 5 October 2005, 17 January 2006, and 7 February 2006. The court noted respondent's progress on certain points and areas that still needed to be addressed. The first permanency planning review hearing was held in May 2006. In the 18 May 2006 permanency planning review order, the trial court adopted a concurrent plan of termination of parental rights/adoption and reunification with respondent. Further permanency planning review orders were entered on 24 July 2006, 26 July 2006, and 14 September 2006. In the 14September order, the trial court concluded that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children as a permanent plan.
On 9 November 2006 YFS filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the children's father and respondent on multiple grounds. The trial court entered two more permanency planning review orders on 11 December 2006 (amended 15 December) and on 19 March 2007. Although the court stated in the 11 December 2006 order that respondent "is in compliance with case plan," it also stated its concern regarding respondent's "ability to meet extraordinary needs of juveniles." In the 19 March 2007 order, the court stated that respondent "has not maintained consistent progress on her case plan."
The hearing to terminate parental rights was held on 16 April, 8 May, and 22 May 2007. The trial court entered an order on 16 August 2007 terminating respondent's parental rights on the ground of neglect. The court concluded that two additional grounds for termination alleged by YFS in its petition had not been proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Respondent appeals. The children's father, R.H., also had his parental rights terminated in the same order but is not a party to this appeal.
II. Neglect
In her sole argument on appeal, respondent contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the minor children were neglected when they were first placed in YFS custody and that the probability of future neglect is too high to return the children to respondent. Respondent further argues the trial court failed to consider changed conditions because evidence was presented that respondent completed her case plan and that if she were to follow certain recommendations suggested by the parenting evaluation, she could learn about her children's needs. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
A trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is reviewed to determine whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact. In re Shermer, 156 N.C. App. 281, 285, 576 S.E.2d 403, 406 (2003). The trial court may terminate parental rights upon finding that a parent has neglected the minor child. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2007). A child is neglected if he or she does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker; or who has been abandoned; or who is not provided necessary medical care; or who is not provided necessary remedial care; or who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile's welfare; or who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2007). In determining neglect, the court must consider "the fitness of the parent to care for the child at the time of the termination proceeding." In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 715, 319 S.E.2d 227, 232 (1984) (emphasis in original). Although evidence of past neglect is admissible, "[t]he trial court must also consider any evidence of changed conditions in light of the evidence of prior neglect and a probability of the repetition of neglect." Id.
B. Analysis
We note that respondent has not assigned error to any of the trial court's findings of fact. The findings of fact are therefore deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding upon this Court on appeal. In re S.N.H. L.J.H., 177 N.C. App. 82, 83, 627 S.E.2d 510, 512 (2006).
The trial court made the following conclusions of law:
5. . . . That the Petitioner, [YFS], has proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that a ground exist[s] to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1).
. . .
8. That the respondents have neglected the juveniles as that term is defined in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15) in that they have failed to provide proper care, supervision and discipline for the juveniles as more specifically alleged in the above Findings of Fact. . . . Additionally, the respondent mother continues to lack an understanding of the juvenile's needs and demonstrates extremely limited ability to meet those needs, thus increasing, if not virtually guaranteeing the probability of repeat neglect. . . .
9. That the juveniles were neglected at the time they came into care. The probability of that neglect being repeated is far too high to consider reunifying the juveniles with [respondent] at any time in the foreseeable future, if ever as more specifically identified in the above Findings of Fact.
Respondent assigned error to conclusion of law number 9 and argues in her brief the trial court erred in making this conclusion. Although respondent assigned error to other conclusions of law, she does not bring arguments forward in her brief relating to those assignments of error, and they are deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007).
We hold that conclusions of law numbers 5 and 8 are sufficient to support the trial court's decision to terminate respondent's parental rights. In addition, we hold that conclusion of law number 9 is supported by the findings of fact. The following findings support conclusion of law number 9 that the children were neglected when they entered YFS custody:
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the juveniles at the time they were placed in the custody of [YFS]
a. YFS has been involved with the family since 2000. The primary issues have been unstable housing and domestic violence. [Respondent] acknowledged she had been spoken to on several occasions by the school authorities regarding proper hygiene of the children.
b. YFS and other agencies have given the respondent mother referrals for services to assist her in providing care for the juveniles. While the agencies were involved, the respondent mother was capable of caring for the juveniles. After the agencies concluded their individual services, they became re-involved at future times.
c. The respondent mother has a history of unstable housing. [Respondent] previously had Section Eight Housing. [Respondent] was evicted from the Section Eight housing due to the condition of the property and her inability to maintain it. At the time the juveniles were placed in the Petitioner's custody, the respondent mother and the juveniles lived in one room of a boarding house. While in the boarding house, the respondent mother and the juveniles slept in the same bed.
d. Prior to being placed in YFS custody, [T.F.] was developmentally delayed. He was nonverbal and incontinent. Since September 2004 until the time he was placed in YFS custody, [T.F.] had missed at least 30 days of school. [Respondent] failed to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that [T.F.] attended school on a regular basis. Because of [T.F.]'s absences, the school system was not able to provide appropriate services for [T.F.].
e. Prior to the juvenile petition, [E.F.] attended pre-kindergarten. Since September, 2004 until she was placed in the Petitioner's custody, [E.F.] missed thirty days of school.
f. [Respondent] relied on [the children's father] for support of the family. [Respondent] had not been employed for the last five years.
g. There was a domestic violence history between the respondent mother and the respondent father. In April 2003, there was a domestic violence incident between the respondent mother and the respondent father. Subsequent to that incident, [the children's father] received limited domestic violence treatment while in jail as a result of violating a restraining order. The police were called in early 2005 because of a disagreement between the respondent mother and the respondent father. The juveniles witnessed at least one incident between the respondent mother and the respondent father. [Respondent] previously resided at the Battered Women's Shelter and participated in domestic violence classes at the Battered Women's Shelter.
The trial court also made detailed findings concerning the extraordinary needs of each child:
19. Dr. Strzelecki found, and the Court finds as fact, that [T.F.] had serious developmental delays, significant global difficulties including inattention, impulsivity, aggression, emotional liability, social difficulties, and autistic like behaviors. [T.F.] is functionally nonverbal. He received speech therapy from the school system.
20. Based on a review of records, collateral contacts, testing, and observations, Dr. Strzelecki concluded, and the Court finds as fact, that [T.F.] presents with greater than expected needs. He will need "a high level of structure, supervision, consistency, and assistance with daily functioning (hygiene, eating, etc . . .)" [T.F.] has special needs with regards to his language skill development and development of non-aggressive coping skills. [T.F.] will require continued involvement with multiple specialized services including outpatient mental health services, in-home/community one on one services, significant speech therapy, and special education services. [T.F.] will need an intensive language development program that utilizes speech therapy techniques combined with behavior modification techniques to promote and reinforce the use of expressive language.
21. Dr. Strzelecki also assessed [E.F.]'s needs. During an interview with Dr. Strzelecki, [E.F.] was hyper-verbal and physically restless. Based on tests, collateral contacts, interviews, and reports, he found which the Court adopts as finding of fact, that [E.F.] demonstrated poor interpersonal boundaries throughout the assessment and dominating of others. Based on the evaluation, Dr. Strzelecki found significant elevations in inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, autistic-like behaviors, and depressed features.
22. The parenting capacity evaluator concluded that "[E.F.] will need a highly structured environment to meet her behavioral needs with an emphasis on establishing appropriate physical and emotional boundaries. She will also need to be involved in comprehensive mental health services including monitoring by a psychiatrist, individual, family, and group counseling, and possible one-on-one worker in the community."
The trial court also made specific findings of fact pertaining to respondent's ability to care for the minor children and whether, based on past neglect, there is a probability of repetition of neglect should the children be returned to respondent:
23. Based upon testing, the respondent mother's abilities were found to be in the borderline range of functioning with a full scale IQ score of 78. [Respondent]'s verbal IQ score was seventy-one (71) which was in the borderline range. Her performance IQ score was 91 which is average range. Consequently, [respondent] will struggle with everyday tasks, struggle with an ability to understand, and struggle with an ability to communicate effectively.
. . .
27. Dr. Strzelecki found, and the Court finds as fact, that the respondent mother minimized the juveniles' significant needs and delayed levels of functioning. [Respondent] does not appear to have an understanding of the severity of the behavioral and developmental difficulties of [E.F.] and [T.F.]. Dr. Strzelecki concluded and the Court finds that [respondent] seems highly overwhelmed by the needs of her children as well as her own difficulties including feeling isolated, unsupported, and not competent in her abilities.
. . .
30. [Respondent]'s strengths as a parent include her basic knowledge of the juveniles' issues and her caring and affectionate demeanor towards the juveniles. Her weaknesses include a significant minimization of the juveniles' deficits. [Respondent] minimized the impact domestic violence has on the juveniles and their functioning. There is also a concern about the respondent mother's ability to set limits with the juveniles. Additionally, she tended to blame others for her circumstances. There was also a lack of follow through or compliance by [respondent].
. . .
44. [Respondent] is limited in her ability to meet the juveniles' needs. [Respondent]'s diagnoses are factors that interfere with her ability to meet the juveniles' needs. For instance, information that could assist the respondent mother with meeting the juveniles' needs, presented to [respondent] may be misinterpreted or misunderstood; thereby placing the juveniles in danger.
45. The combination of the respondent mother's deficiencies with the juveniles' needs makes the possibility of [respondent] ever acquiring the ability to care for her children a "daunting task," and that if the Petitioner was not involved with the respondent mother and the juveniles were returned home, that the issues which led to the juveniles coming into care could repeat.
46. Currently, the respondent mother does not have stable housing. She lives in a three bedroom public housing apartment with two other adults. One of the adults is elderly and disabled. The other adult has some medical issues. Occasionally, [respondent] provides care for these individuals. [Respondent]'s name is not on the lease. The home is not appropriate for the juveniles. There is no space for the juveniles.
. . .
48. The respondent mother completed parenting classes at the Family Center. She received in home parenting education services until July 2006. . . . At this time, the respondent mother is not able to adequately demonstrate the skills learned from the parenting classes.
. . .
51. Additionally, there were concerns about the respondent mother's ability to redirect and manage the juveniles during the weekly supervised visits. Initially, [respondent] would sit in a chair and have little interaction with the children. Later in 2007, [respondent] began to interact more with the juveniles. At this time, her ability to redirect and manage the juveniles' behaviors and needs remain a concern.
. . .
57. Given the juveniles' extremely high needs and [respondent]'s own limitations, she made as much progress as is reasonable to expect of her.
We hold that the above-recited findings of fact support the trial court's conclusion number 9 that the minor children were neglected when they entered YFS's care and that the likelihood of repeated neglect in the future was too high to return the children to respondent. Given the children's many needs, respondent's limited ability to understand and address her children's issues, and the finding that respondent has made as much progress as is reasonable to expect of her given her limitations, the trial court did not err in concluding that the risk of repeated neglect in the future is too high to return the children to respondent's care. Since the findings are sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion of law number 9, we hold that the trial court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights. See Shermer, 156 N.C. App. at 285, 576 S.E.2d at 406. The remaining assignments of error presented by respondent and not set out or argued in her brief are deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
AFFIRMED.
Judges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concurs.
Report per Rule 30(e).