Opinion
No. COA16-41
07-19-2016
IN THE MATTER OF: S.S.L.B.
No brief filed for Petitioner-Appellee mother. J. Thomas Diepenbrock for Respondent-Appellant father. No brief filed for guardian ad litem.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Wilkes County, No. 15 JT 139 Appeal by Respondent-father from an order entered 3 November 2015 by Judge David V. Byrd in Wilkes County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 July 2016. No brief filed for Petitioner-Appellee mother. J. Thomas Diepenbrock for Respondent-Appellant father. No brief filed for guardian ad litem. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Respondent appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor child, S.S.L.B. ("Susan"). We affirm the trial court.
The pseudonym "Susan" is used throughout to protect the juvenile's privacy and for ease of reading.
Respondent and Petitioner married in 2006 when their daughter, Susan, was born. Respondent and Petitioner separated in 2011 and later divorced. Respondent and Petitioner initially shared custody of Susan, but in September 2012 Petitioner obtained sole custody of Susan after Respondent fled from law enforcement while driving intoxicated. Respondent had little contact with Petitioner or Susan over the next three years, and on 23 July 2015, Petitioner filed a petition to terminate Respondent's parental rights to Susan. The trial court heard the parties on 1 October 2015, and then entered an order on 3 November 2015 terminating Respondent's parental rights. The trial court concluded grounds existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect and abandonment, and that termination was in Susan's best interests. Respondent timely filed written notice of appeal.
We first address Respondent's argument that the trial court erred in concluding the ground of neglect exists to terminate his parental rights. We disagree.
This Court reviews a trial court's findings and conclusions regarding a ground for termination of parental rights to determine whether clear and convincing evidence exists to support the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. In re Huff, 140 N.C. App. 288, 291, 536 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 374, 547 S.E.2d 9 (2001). A trial court may terminate a father's parental rights when he has neglected the juvenile. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2015). A neglected juvenile is defined in part as "[a] juvenile who does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker; or who has been abandoned[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2015) (emphasis added). In the context of neglect:
Abandonment has been defined as "wilful neglect and refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of
parental care and support. It has been held that if a parent withholds his presence, his love, his care, the opportunity to display filial affection, and wilfully neglects to lend support and maintenance, such parent relinquishes all parental claims and abandons the child."In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533, 540, 577 S.E.2d 421, 427 (2003) (quoting Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 501, 126 S.E.2d 597, 608 (1962)).
Here, the trial court found Respondent had "rarely availed himself of the opportunity to express love for [Susan] or help her[,]" and that he had "been totally absent from her life for a lengthy period of time." In the three years prior to the hearing, Respondent had only seen Susan twice: once in the Summer of 2013 at his parent's house, where he became hostile and argued with Petitioner about property issues and caused Petitioner and Susan to leave, and once at Susan's school for a few minutes in 2015, when he brought her a birthday gift. The trial court found Petitioner never denied Respondent the opportunity to see Susan, that Respondent knew Petitioner's phone number but never made any significant attempts to call and speak to her or Susan, and that Respondent's failure to maintain contact with Susan was his own doing. For example, the trial court found Respondent contacted Petitioner in December 2014, and asked to bring Susan a gift. Petitioner agreed, but Respondent never showed up with the gift. Additionally, Respondent failed to appear at the last custody hearing in September 2012 and failed to appear at the hearing to terminate his parental rights, which lead the trial court to believe Respondent had no intent to have a significant relationship with Susan.
Respondent has not challenged any of the above findings of fact, and they are binding on this Court on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). These findings demonstrate Respondent's withholding of his presence, love, care, and opportunity to display filial affection. Although Respondent provided some financial support to Susan through checks sent directly to Petitioner by the Social Security Administration, he only augmented that money with $20.00 since September 2012, even though he had been working as a mason. We hold the trial court's findings fully support its conclusion that Respondent neglected and continued to neglect Susan through the date of the hearing by abandoning her. Because the trial court did not err in terminating Respondent's parental rights on the ground of neglect by abandonment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), we need not address his arguments regarding the ground of willful abandonment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(7). In re P.L.P., 173 N.C. App. 1, 8, 618 S.E.2d 241, 246 (2005), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 360, 625 S.E.2d 779 (2006). Respondent does not challenge the trial court's conclusion that termination of his parental rights serves Susan's best interests, and we thus affirm the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights.
The findings of fact that respondent has challenged are unnecessary to support the trial court's conclusions of law regarding the ground of neglect and any error in the findings do not constitute reversible error. In re B.S.O., 234 N.C. App. 706, 708, 760 S.E.2d 59, 62 (2014).
AFFIRMED.
Judges Elmore and McCullough concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).