Opinion
No. COA18-514
03-05-2019
In the MATTER OF: S.S.S. and S.R.S.
Woodruff Law Firm, PA, Greensboro, by Carolyn J. Woodruff and Jessica Snowberger Bullock, for petitioner-appellee mother Mark L. Hayes, for respondent-appellant father.
Woodruff Law Firm, PA, Greensboro, by Carolyn J. Woodruff and Jessica Snowberger Bullock, for petitioner-appellee mother
Mark L. Hayes, for respondent-appellant father.
MURPHY, Judge.
Respondent-father ("Respondent") appeals from orders terminating his parental rights. Respondent’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d) stating that, after a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal, he has concluded that the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief. N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(d) (2019). Appellate counsel provided Respondent with copies of the no-merit brief, trial transcript, and record on appeal and advised him of his right to file a brief pro se with this Court; however, Respondent did not exercise his right to file a pro se brief. Accordingly, no issues have been argued or preserved in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In re L.V. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 814 S.E.2d 928, 929 (2018) ; In re I.B. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 822 S.E.2d 472, 477 (2018) (detailing "settled rules of interpretation [that] support a conclusion that we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under the text of Rule 3.1(d) as it is written").
DISMISSED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
Judge HUNTER, JR. concurs.
Chief Judge McGEE dissents in a separate opinion.
McGEE, Chief Judge, dissenting.
Based on the rationale in my dissenting opinion in In re L.E.M. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 820 S.E.2d 577 (2018), I believe this Court is required to conduct an Anders -type review when a no-merit brief is filed pursuant to the requirements of N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(d). Based on a review of the record, I am unable to find any prejudicial error by the trial court in ordering termination of Respondent’s parental rights. A review of the record reveals that the termination order includes sufficient findings of fact, supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, to support at least one ground for termination. See In re Taylor , 97 N.C. App. 57, 64, 387 S.E.2d 230, 233-34 (1990) (A finding of any one of the separately enumerated grounds is sufficient to support termination.). Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of S.S.S. and S.R.S. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110 (2017). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s orders.