Opinion
No. COA13–41.
2013-07-2
In the Matter of E.K., E.K., and E.K., Minor children.
No brief filed on behalf of petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services. Leslie Rawls, for respondent-appellant.
Appeal by respondent from orders entered 6 March 2012 and 9 October 2012 by Judge Louis A. Trosch in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 June 2013. No brief filed on behalf of petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services. Leslie Rawls, for respondent-appellant.
No brief filed on behalf of guardian ad litem.
DAVIS, Judge.
Respondent-father E.K. (“respondent”) appeals from the trial court's orders ceasing reunification efforts and terminating his parental rights with respect to his three children, E.K. (“Edward”), E.K. (“Ellen”), and E.K. (“Earl”). After careful review, we affirm.
Pseudonyms are used throughout this opinion to protect the minors' privacy and for ease of reading. N.C. R.App. P. 3.1(b).
Factual Background
On 16 February 2007, the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services (“YFS”) filed a juvenile petition alleging that Edward, Ellen, and Earl were neglected and dependent juveniles. The petition alleged that respondent had a history of substance abuse and that he had exposed the juveniles to domestic violence and inappropriate housing. YFS obtained nonsecure custody of the juveniles on 15 February 2007.
At an adjudication hearing held on 17 April 2007, respondent and respondent-mother S.W. stipulated through a mediated agreement that Edward, Ellen, and Earl were neglected and dependent juveniles. In the trial court's dispositional order, entered 20 April 2007, the court incorporated the mediated case plan which required respondent to (1) obtain a substance abuse assessment; (2) submit to random drug screens; (3) complete domestic violence and parenting programs; and (4) obtain and maintain stable employment and housing.
Following several permanency planning review hearings, the trial court entered an order on 6 March 2012 in which it found that respondent had “not made sufficient progress on his case plan such that the children could be safely returned to him.” Consequently, the trial court ordered YFS to cease reunification efforts with respondent and approved adoption as the permanent plan for all three children.
On 9 March 2012, YFS filed individual petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights with respect to Edward, Ellen, and Earl . The petitions alleged that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights pursuant to (1) N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(1) (neglect); (2) N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(2) (failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the juveniles' removal); and (3) N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(3) (failure to pay a reasonable portion of the juveniles' care). After holding a hearing on the petitions on 23 August 2012, the trial court entered an order on 9 October 2012 in which it concluded that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights under N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 7B–1111(a)(1) and –1111(a)(2) and that termination was in the juveniles' best interest. Respondent timely appealed to this Court from the trial court's orders ceasing reunification efforts and terminating his parental rights.
Respondent-mother relinquished her parental rights to all three children on 1 February 2012 and is not a party to this appeal.
Analysis
Respondent's appellate counsel has filed with this Court a no-merit brief on respondent's behalf, stating that counsel has thoroughly reviewed the record and trial transcript and was “unable to find a meritorious issue on which to base an appellate argument, and has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.” Pursuant to Rule 3.1(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, counsel requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. N.C. R.App. P. 3.1(d). In accordance with Rule 3.1(d), counsel wrote respondent a letter on 8 February 2013 advising him of (1) counsel's inability to find error; (2) counsel's request for this Court to conduct an independent review of the record; and (3) his right to file his own arguments directly with this Court within 30 days of the date of the filing of counsel's no-merit brief. The record indicates that respondent has not filed any written arguments of his own.
In addition to seeking review pursuant to Rule 3.1(d), counsel also directs our attention to potential issues regarding (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied respondent's motion for a continuance of the termination proceedings; and (2) the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights. Counsel acknowledges, however, that these issues would not alter the ultimate result in this case.
After carefully reviewing the transcript and record in this case, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial court's order terminating respondent's parental rights. First, we do not perceive any abuse of discretion in denying respondent's request for a continuance in order to subpoena witnesses. When asked by the trial court, (1) trial counsel did not know who respondent wanted to subpoena as a witness; (2) respondent could not identify anyone in particular that he wished to call as a witness; and (3) neither trial counsel nor respondent provided any forecast of testimony that might be presented. See In re J.B., 172 N.C.App. 1, 11, 616 S.E.2d 264, 270–71 (2005) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's request for continuance where mother failed to explain how she was unable to obtain evidence prior to trial).
Although respondent noticed appeal from the trial court's order ceasing reunification efforts, he does not challenge this order on appeal. Accordingly, it is affirmed.
With respect to the grounds for termination found by the trial court, we conclude that the court's unchallenged findings of fact regarding respondent's failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the juveniles' removal justify termination of respondent's parental rights. Respondent's court-ordered case plan required him to (1) obtain a substance abuse assessment; (2) submit to random drug screens; (3) complete domestic violence and parenting programs; and (4) obtain and maintain stable employment and housing. The trial court's uncontested findings establish that while respondent has completed parenting classes and has found housing, he has “d [one] nothing else on his case plan.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that termination was appropriate under § 7B–1111(a)(2). See In re O.C. & O.B., 171 N.C.App. 457, 467, 615 S.E.2d 391, 397 (holding that trial court's findings that mother failed to comply with her case plan supported termination under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–1111(a)(2)), disc. review denied,360 N.C. 64, 623 S.E.2d 587 (2005). The trial court's order terminating respondent's parental rights is, therefore, affirmed.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court's 6 March 2012 and 9 October 2012 orders.
AFFIRMED. Judges ELMORE and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).