Opinion
No. COA15–705.
01-19-2016
In the Matter of: D.T., S.K., G.K.
No brief filed for petitioner-appellee Orange County Department of Social Services. Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., by Tobias R. Coleman, for Guardian ad Litem. Peter Wood for respondent-appellant mother.
No brief filed for petitioner-appellee Orange County Department of Social Services.
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., by Tobias R. Coleman, for Guardian ad Litem.
Peter Wood for respondent-appellant mother.
Opinion
Appeal by respondent-mother from orders entered 27 February 2015 by Judge Beverly Scarlett in Orange County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 December 2015.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Respondent-mother appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to her children “Donald,” “Stan,” and “Gary” (collectively, “the children”). We affirm.
Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the children and for ease of reading.
I. Background
On 18 October 2012, the Orange County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed petitions alleging that the children were neglected and dependent juveniles based upon, inter alia, respondent-mother's mental illness and drug use, and acts of domestic violence in the home. On 21 February 2013, the trial court closed the case after the family appeared to have made sufficient progress on their case goals.
On 4 March 2013, DSS filed new petitions alleging the children were neglected and abused after it received reports that the father of Stan and Gary (“Mr.K.”) assaulted respondent-mother and her maternal grandmother, as well as Donald when he tried to intervene. When law enforcement arrived, they arrested Mr. K. and found respondent-mother to be acting impaired. DSS obtained non-secure custody of the children and placed them in foster care. Following a hearing on 2 May 2013, the court adjudicated the children as neglected and dependent juveniles and continued custody with DSS.
Respondent-mother was ordered to comply with her Family Services Case Plan, participate in a psychological evaluation, and complete substance abuse and mental health assessments. She only made limited progress in achieving these goals. As a result, on 15 August 2014, the trial court entered an order changing the permanent plan for the children to adoption and relieving DSS of efforts to work towards reunification with respondent-mother.
On 16 October 2014, DSS filed motions in the cause seeking to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights to each of the children. A hearing on the termination motions was conducted on 29 January 2015. On 27 February 2015, the trial court entered orders which concluded that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights based on neglect, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(1) (2013), willfully leaving a child in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(2), and dependency, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(6). The court further concluded that termination was in the children's best interests. Respondent-mother timely appealed.
Mr. K. also appealed from separate orders terminating his parental rights. This Court affirmed those orders. In re S.K. & G.K, No. COA15–561, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––– S.E.2d –––– (filed Nov. 17, 2015) (unpublished).
II. Discussion
Counsel for respondent-mother has filed a no-merit brief on her behalf pursuant to N.C. R.App. P. 3.1(d) (2013) stating that “he concludes that the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief and that the appeal would be frivolous.” Counsel asks this Court to conduct an independent review of the record for possible error. Counsel has also demonstrated that he has advised respondent-mother of her right to file written arguments with this Court and provided her with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-mother has not filed her own written arguments.
Consistent with the requirements of Rule 3.1(d), counsel directs our attention to potential issues with the trial court's adjudication of grounds to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights and its conclusion that termination was in the children's best interests. However, counsel acknowledges that these issues do not provide a meritorious basis for appeal.
After careful review, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error by the trial court. The termination order includes sufficient findings of fact, supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, to conclude that at least one statutory ground for termination existed. See In re Taylor, 97 N.C.App. 57, 64, 387 S.E.2d 230, 23334 (1990) (Any one of the enumerated grounds is sufficient to support termination.). Moreover, the court made appropriate findings on each of the relevant dispositional factors and did not abuse its discretion in assessing the children's best interests. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1110(a) (2013). Accordingly, we affirm the orders terminating respondent-mother's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Judges INMAN and ZACHARY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).