Domestic Relations – Termination of Parental Rights – Neglect

The trial court did not err by concluding that neglect existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

We affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Respondent Mother appealed from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor child “Imelda” on the following four grounds: neglect; willfully leaving the child in placement outside the home for more than 12 months without correcting the conditions which led to the child’s removal; dependency; and the parental rights of the parent, with respect to another child, have been terminated involuntarily.

The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services filed a Motion to Terminate Parental Rights in 2023. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a Termination of Parental Rights Order terminating Mother’s parental rights. The trial court concluded that there were four grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights: Mother had neglected Imelda and “it is probable that there would be a repetition of neglect . . . if [Imelda] is returned to” Mother’s care, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), Mother had “willfully left [Imelda] in placement outside of the home for more than 12 months without showing to the satisfaction of the court that reasonable progress under the circumstances has been made in correcting those conditions which led to the removal of [Imelda],” id. § 7B-1111(a)(2), Mother “is incapable of providing proper care and supervision of [Imelda], such that . . . [Imelda] is a dependent . . . and that there is a reasonable probability that the incapability will continue for the foreseeable future,” and the “parental rights of [Mother] with respect to another child of [Mother] have been terminated involuntarily by a court[.]”The trial court proceeded to disposition and concluded that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Imelda’s best interests, and it ordered termination of Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed.

Mother contended that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence does not support the trial court’s ultimate findings and conclusions that Imelda’s neglect would be repeated in the future if she was returned to Mother’s care. In making its findings of fact, the trial court considered testimony from Dr. Russell Hancock, the psychotherapist who evaluated Mother; Natalie Smith, the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Division of Youth and Family Services worker assigned to the case; Blair Wrangham, the Guardian ad Litem volunteer; and Emily White, Imelda’s foster mother. The trial court also considered Dr. Hancock’s Parenting Focused Psychological Evaluation of Mother and the Guardian ad Litem’s TPR report. Thus, there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings of fact, including that the neglect experienced by Imelda would repeat or continue if she were returned to Mother’s care and custody. Furthermore, because the trial court properly terminated Mother’s parental rights based on neglect, we did not need to address the three remaining grounds for termination.

Affirmed.

In the Matter of I.M.S. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-103-25, 12 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court (J. Rex Marvel, J.) Mecklenburg County Attorney’s Office, by Kristina A. Graham, for Petitioner-Appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services; Administrative Office of the Courts, by Brittany T. McKinney, for Guardian ad Litem; J. Thomas Diepenbrock for Respondent-Appellant Mother. North Carolina Court of Appeals