Opinion
No. COA12–640.
2012-10-2
In the Matter of B.M.A.
Henderson County Department of Social Services, by Deputy County Attorney Rebekah R. Price for Petitioner–Appellee. Harrington, Gilleland, Winstead, Feindel & Lucas, LLP, by Anna S. Lucas, for Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal by Respondent from order entered 4 April 2012 by Judge Peter B. Knight in Henderson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 September 2012. Henderson County Department of Social Services, by Deputy County Attorney Rebekah R. Price for Petitioner–Appellee. Harrington, Gilleland, Winstead, Feindel & Lucas, LLP, by Anna S. Lucas, for Respondent–Appellant.
Ellis & Winters, LLP, by Lenor Marquis Segal, for Guardian ad Litem.
BEASLEY, Judge.
Respondent appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her son, B.M.A . We affirm.
To protect the privacy of the juvenile, his initials are used in this opinion.
On 10 September 2010, the Henderson County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed a juvenile petition alleging that B.M.A. was neglected and dependent. The trial court adjudicated B.M.A. neglected and dependent in an order entered on 5 November 2010. In a separate disposition order, the trial court awarded custody of B.M .A. to DSS.
On 11 January 2012, DSS filed a motion in the cause to terminate Respondent's parental rights based on the following grounds: (1) neglect; (2) willfully leaving the juvenile in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to removal; (3) willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juvenile; and (4) Respondent's parental rights with respect to another child have been terminated and Respondent lacks the ability or willingness to establish a safe home. SeeN.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111 (a)(1)-(3), (9) (2011). Following a hearing on 1 March 2012, the trial court entered an order on 4 April 2012 concluding that all four grounds existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights. The trial court then determined that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in B.M.A.'s best interest. Respondent gave timely notice of appeal.
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of B.M.A.'s father, but he did not appeal.
Respondent's counsel has filed a no-merit brief on Respondent's behalf in which counsel states that she “conscientiously and thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and concluded that there is no issue which would alter the ultimate result.” Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d), counsel requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has advised Respondent of her right to file written arguments with this Court, and counsel has provided her with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent has not filed her own written arguments.
Counsel directs our attention to the following potential issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding the existence of grounds for termination of Respondent's parental rights; (2) whether the trial court erred in concluding that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in B.M.A.'s best interest; and (3) whether the termination motion contained facts sufficient to warrant a determination that one or more grounds existed for terminating parental rights. Counsel, however, acknowledges that she is unable to set forth any non-frivolous argument regarding these issues.
After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial court's order. The trial court's findings of fact support at least one ground for termination, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the best interests of the juvenile.
Accordingly, following careful review of the record, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights to B.M.A.
Affirmed.
Report per Rule 30(e).