Opinion
No. COA12–521.
2012-11-20
In the Matter of D.D.R.
Mercedes O. Chut, for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Social Services. Smith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, L.L.P., by Margaret Rowlett, for guardian ad litem.
Appeal by respondent from order entered 10 February 2012 by Judge Betty J. Brown in Guilford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 October 2012. Mercedes O. Chut, for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Social Services. Smith, James, Rowlett & Cohen, L.L.P., by Margaret Rowlett, for guardian ad litem.
Duncan B. McCormick, for respondent-appellant father.
STEELMAN, Judge.
The trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record. These findings support the conclusion of law that father was incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of D.D.R. The trial court's order terminating father's parental rights is affirmed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On 29 September 2008, the Guilford County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that D.D.R., then aged 4, and his siblings were neglected juveniles, and that D.D.R.'s sister was abused. The trial court adjudicated D.D.R. and his siblings neglected and the sister abused. The trial court placed the children in the custody of DSS.
Father was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual offense of a child, and taking indecent liberties with a child. He received a cumulative prison sentence of approximately 125 years. On 18 September 2012, this Court found no plain error in that trial. State v. [D.R.], ––– N.C.App. ––––, 731 S.E.2d 862, 2012 WL 4077895 (COA 11–1588) (2012) (unpublished).
D.D.R.'s mother relinquished her parental rights on 4 May 2011. On 25 July 2011, DSS filed a petition to terminate father's rights to D.D.R. on the grounds of abuse, neglect, and dependency. On 10 February 2012, the trial court determined that termination of father's parental rights was in the best interest of D.D.R. and terminated his parental rights on the basis of abuse, neglect, and dependency.
Father appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“The standard for review in termination of parental rights cases is whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether these findings, in turn, support the conclusions of law.” In re Clark, 72 N.C.App. 118, 124, 323 S .E.2d 754, 758 (1984). Unchallenged findings are binding on this Court. In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 404, 293 S.E.2d 127, 133 (1982).
III. Incapability
Parental rights may be terminated where “the parent is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile, such that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B–101, and [ ] there is a reasonable probability that such incapability will continue for the foreseeable future.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(6) (2011).
A dependent child is “in need of assistance or placement because the juvenile has no parent, guardian, or custodian responsible for the juvenile's care or supervision or whose parent, guardian, or custodian is unable to provide for the care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–101(9) (2011).
Father concedes in his brief that incarceration renders a parent unavailable to parent. He received a cumulative prison sentence of approximately 125 years, and this Court found no plain error in his trial. State v. [D.R.], ––– N.C.App. ––––, 731 S.E.2d 862, 2012 WL 4077895 (2012) (unpublished). Father argues that he provided an appropriate alternative child care arrangement by suggesting other caretakers.
The trial court found that father lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement. This finding is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record. A social worker testified that father never provided an appropriate alternative child care arrangement. Father's mother apparently insisted that her granddaughter sleep in the bathtub. D.D.R.'s mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. This finding supports the trial court's conclusion that father is incapable of providing for the proper care of D.D.R.
Father challenges the trial court's conclusions of law as to abuse and neglect. However, because a finding of only one ground is necessary to support termination of parental rights, we need not consider the remaining grounds. In re P.L.P., 173 N.C.App. 1, 8, 618 S.E.2d 241, 246 (2005), aff'd, 360 N.C. 360, 625 S.E.2d 779 (2006) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED. Judges ELMORE and STROUD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).