The opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-941
Filed 3 June 2026
Alamance County, Nos. 23JA000176-000, 23JA000177-000
IN THE MATTER OF: D.M.D., and K.W.D.
Appeal by Respondent-mother and Respondent-father from orders entered 12
June 2025 by Judge Frederick B. Wilkins in Alamance County District Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2026.
Ewing Law Firm, P.C., by Robert W. Ewing, for respondent-appellant mother.
Parent Defender Annick Lenior-Peek, by Assistant Parent Defender Benjamin
J. Kull, for respondent-appellant father.
Jamie L. Hamlett for petitioner-appellee Alamance County Department of
Social Services.
NC GAL Staff Counsel Michelle FormyDuval Lynch for guardian ad litem.
WOOD, Judge.
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
Respondent-Father (“Father”) and Respondent-Mother (“Mother”) appeal from
the trial court’s order terminating both parents’ parental rights to K.W.D. (“Kevin”)
and D.M.D. (“David”).1 Both parents argue the trial court erred in finding grounds
exist under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a) to terminate their parental rights. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s and
Father’s parental rights.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Kevin was born 1 November 2022. On 3 November 2022, Alamance County
Department of Social Services (“DSS”) received a report alleging neglect due to the
fact both Kevin and Mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at his birth.
Mother reported she had five other children living with family in Connecticut but had
limited support in North Carolina. A safety plan was established with the paternal
grandmother providing support and the family began receiving in-home services.
Custody remained with the parents. However, DSS stated the “parents needed to
obtain mental health and substance abuse assessments and follow recommendations,
develop parenting skills and the mother needs viable/stable housing and income.”
DSS also became aware that significant conflict existed between the parents. Mother
“reported verbal domestic violence and control dynamics by the father” and a social
1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the juveniles pursuant to N.C. R. App. P.
42(b).
-2-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
worker observed arguing. Parents completed one parenting class, which resulted in
a recommendation for couples’ counseling.
In July 2023, the temporary safety plan was dissolved. Kevin was living at
home, and Father was designated the primary caregiver.
On 11 October 2023, Mother gave birth to David. On 17 October 2023, DSS
received another report alleging neglect as both Mother and baby tested positive for
cocaine and marijuana. In addition, David tested positive for benzodiazepines and
opiates. During the family’s stay in the hospital for David’s birth, hospital security
intervened in the ongoing conflict between Mother and Father.
After receiving the 17 October report, a Child and Family team meeting was
held. At the meeting Mother and Father became verbally hostile to the DSS social
worker, denied substance use, and did not have an alternative plan for the children.
After the meeting, DSS filed petitions alleging both Kevin and David were neglected
and dependent. DSS obtained a non-secure custody order and took custody of both
boys that same day.
The petitions came on for hearing 21 February 2024. The trial court
adjudicated the boys neglected and dependent and continued custody with DSS. The
boys were placed in a foster home. Both parents were ordered to engage with DSS in
order to make progress towards reunification. Mother was ordered to: develop a
sufficient source of income to support herself and the children’s basic needs, provide
a safe and appropriate home environment, refrain from allowing mental health or
-3-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
substance abuse to impact her parenting by completing a mental health and
substance abuse assessment and implementing strategies, attend a domestic violence
program and have a home free of domestic violence and chaos/discord, refrain from
illegal activities, demonstrate age appropriate discipline and parenting skills by
attending a parenting program and implementing strategies during visitation,
demonstrate the ability to ensure the children’s medical needs are met, and provide
a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the children. Father was ordered to:
develop a sufficient source of income to support himself and develop a budget, provide
a safe and appropriate home environment, refrain from allowing mental health or
substance abuse to impact his parenting by completing a mental health and
substance abuse assessment and implement strategies, attend a domestic violence
program and have a home free of domestic violence and chaos/discord, demonstrate
age appropriate discipline and parenting skills, demonstrate the ability to ensure the
children’s medical needs are met, and provide a reasonable portion of the cost of care
for the children.
On 17 July 2024, a permanency planning hearing was held. The trial court
noted that Mother was not making adequate progress towards reunification and
Father was making some progress but continued to act in a manner inconsistent with
the health and safety of the children. Mother had not secured housing and continued
in a relationship with Father, which she said was improving. However, social
workers observed noticeable bruises on Mother, and a co-worker of Mother’s had
-4-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
called police to request a well check due to abuse concerns. Additionally, Mother had
completed a comprehensive clinical assessment (“CCA”) which recommended
outpatient therapy and peer services. Mother did not follow through with any
recommended services and tested positive for cocaine on 17 April 2024. The trial
court found Mother had completed a four-hour on-line parenting class.
Similarly, Father had not secured his own housing but was living at his sister’s
home, in hotel rooms, and sometimes in a car. He had not gained employment but
was receiving social security disability. He had been purchasing diapers and wipes
for the boys. The trial court further noted that on 17 February 2024, police found 1.5
grams of marijuana and 0.6 grams of crack cocaine in his possession during a traffic
stop, and he was driving without a license. Father agreed to a plea deal and received
twelve months of supervised probation.
The trial court noted Father had completed a mental health and substance
abuse assessment and based on his responses, no immediate recommendations were
given. Father was adamant he had completed everything in his case plan, but he had
continued to be hostile to DSS caseworkers on numerous occasions. The DSS social
worker testified when they reached out to the domestic violence class instructor, he
reported Father had not been consistent with attendance and had missed almost half
of the sessions. The instructor reported he was unable to observe Father utilize any
skills he had learned due to his poor attendance and, if Father did not have an open
case with DSS, he already would have been released from the program. The trial
-5-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
court found Father had completed a four-hour on-line parenting class. The trial court
continued the plan of reunification.
On 4 December 2024, the trial court conducted another permanency planning
hearing. The trial court found that neither Father nor Mother was making adequate
progress towards reunification. During a meeting with DSS on 18 September 2024,
Mother disclosed she was twenty-three weeks pregnant. Also, during the same
meeting DSS observed an incident between Mother and Father. They noted Mother
frequently covered bruises with makeup and that Father would break Mother’s
phones to control her communication. The DSS social worker also testified that on
multiple occasions, Father raised his voice and became aggressive with DSS social
workers. Mother and Father still did not have stable housing. Father had provided
DSS with proof of an apartment and utility bills; however, the apartment lease was
in the name of someone who had given him permission to reside there. When DSS
social workers attempted to locate the parents, they were unable to establish exactly
where Father and Mother were living, but it appeared they were together. Father
also misled social workers about his location at various times, refused rides to drug
testing, and became frustrated when the foster parent requested more diapers. The
DSS social worker also testified that Mother was lying about employment, had not
completed a domestic violence curriculum, and had tested negative on some drug
tests but refused others.
-6-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
The trial court changed the primary plan to adoption and made reunification
the secondary plan. Additionally, DSS noted medical concerns with David that
included a possible genetic condition. DSS requested and the trial court ordered
Father to take a paternity test to provide genetic information to support David’s care.
After the 4 December hearing, Mother enrolled in a residential substance
abuse treatment program called Cascades in Charolotte, North Carolina. During the
telephone intake Mother indicated that she was currently using marijuana and
suboxone and there was a past and present issue of domestic violence. She asked
Rebecca Kefer (“Kefer”), the DSS social worker, if she could give her a ride to
Charlotte. She provided Father’s address as the location to pick her up on 12
December. Father attempted to call Mother on the way to the program, but her phone
was off, so he called Kefer multiple times. Mother also reported that she and Father
had argued while she was packing and he had thrown all her shirts away.
On 15 December, three days after her check-in to the treatment center, Mother
tested positive for THC and cocaine. She also reported she had been with Father for
four years but there had been domestic violence for only the last two years.
Kefer attempted to stay in contact with Mother while she was in treatment;
however, Mother rarely responded and communication with her was difficult.
Mother gave birth to their third child, Kimberly, on 30 December 2024 by a
scheduled c-section. At the time of delivery, Mother tested positive for Hepatitis C
and Strep B. Kimberly’s urine did not test positive for any illicit substances, but her
-7-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
meconium was sent for testing. It was negative for amphetamines, opiates, and
oxycodone but there was not enough of the sample to test for cocaine, THC, or
benzodiazepines. However, medical records indicated Kimberly was affected by
maternal use of cannabis, opiates, and tobacco since Mother tested positive multiple
times during pregnancy. Father was present at Kimberly’s birth and cut the
umbilical cord. He also visited Mother in the hospital several times.
Mother did not inform DSS when Kimberly was born. The boys’ foster mother
informed DSS on 31 December Kimberly had been born. Kefer reached out to Mother
but received no response. The care manager from Atrium Health, the hospital where
Kimberly was born, reached out to DSS on 31 December with questions but could not
give DSS any information because Mother had instructed hospital staff that they
were not allowed to release information to DSS. When Kefer contacted Father, he
stated he did not know anything about the birth even though he had been present.
On 3 January 2025, DSS filed a petition alleging Kimberly was a neglected
juvenile in that she did not have proper care or supervision and lived in an injurious
environment. DSS sought and received nonsecure custody of Kimberly.
A non-secure custody hearing was held on 8 January 2025. The trial court
continued non-secure custody with DSS but allowed DSS to place Kimberly with
Mother at the treatment facility as long as Mother complied with treatment and DSS
facilitated interactions between Kimberly and Father.
-8-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
On 7 February 2025, DSS filed a Motion to Terminate Parental Rights to Kevin
and David. DSS alleged grounds to terminate were neglect, willfully leaving the
children in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable
progress to correct the conditions that led to removal, willful failure to pay a
reasonable portion of the cost of care, and dependency in regards to Mother. The
allegations regarding Father were similar but did not include dependency.
On 1 April 2025, DSS filed a motion to establish paternity. Father submitted
to paternity testing. The results indicated there was 99.99% chance that David was
Father’s biological child but 00.00% chance Kevin was his biological child.
Consequently, DSS moved to remove Father from Kevin’s termination case.
On 7 and 8 May 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petitions for
termination of parental rights to Kevin and David and the adjudication for Kimberly.
Because Paternity Test results indicated there was a 0.00% chance that Kevin was
Father’s biological child, the trial court ordered Father be removed as a party from
the termination regarding Kevin and proceeded with the termination of Father’s
parental rights to David.
During adjudication of the termination of parental rights, the trial court heard
testimony from Kefer; Vinneshia Covington (“Covington”), Mother’s manager when
she worked at Hardee’s; Linette Myers (“Myers”) a friend of Mother and foster mother
for the boys; and Tabitha Brown (“Brown”), another DSS employee. The trial court
found grounds existed to terminate both parents’ parental rights based on each
-9-
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
ground alleged by DSS. The trial court then proceeded to disposition. Kefer, Myers,
and Brown provided additional testimony. Mother, Father, and the children’s
guardian ad litem also testified. The trial court found it was in David’s best interest
to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and in Kevin’s best interest to
terminate Mother’s parental rights.
The trial court filed the termination of parental rights orders on 12 June 2025.
Mother and Father entered notice of appeal on 8 July 2025 and 11 July 2025,
respectively.
II. Analysis
On appeal Mother and Father argue the trial court erred in finding grounds to
terminate their parental rights. Father contends the trial court erred because the
trial court failed to establish a causal connection between Father’s “anger” and his
ability to parent sufficient to warrant termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
1111(a)(1) and (2), and Father did not willfully fail to contribute to the cost of care
under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) when he chose one of the two payment options
provided by the trial court. Mother contends the trial court erred by (1) finding
Mother was incapable of providing care under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6) because
Mother had appropriate child care arrangements, (2) concluding Mother willfully
failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care when she was complying with her
court ordered case service plan by attending a residential drug treatment program
that did not permit her to work, and (3) concluding grounds existed under N.C. Gen.
- 10 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) when she had eliminated the likelihood of future neglect
by correcting the conditions that led to the children’s removal from the home. We
disagree.
A. Standard of Review
Our Juvenile Code provides for a two-step process for
termination of parental rights proceedings consisting of an
adjudicatory stage and a dispositional stage. At the
adjudicatory stage, the petitioner bears the burden of
proving by ‘clear, cogent, and convincing evidence’ the
existence of one or more grounds for termination under
section 7B-1111(a) of the General Statutes.
In re I.J.W., 378 N.C. 17, 21, 859 S.E.2d 148, 151 (2021) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). “If the trial court finds that grounds exist for termination, it then
proceeds to the dispositional stage at which it must ‘determine whether terminating
the parent’s rights is in the juvenile’s best interest[.]’” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388,
391–92, 831 S.E.2d 49, 52 (2019) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110(a)). Here,
parents appeal only the adjudication.
“We review a trial court’s adjudication under N.C. [Gen. Stat.] § 7B-1109 to
determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing
evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law. The trial court’s conclusions
of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.” In re Z.A.M., 374 N.C. 88, 94, 839 S.E.2d
792, 797 (2020) (quoting In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19, 832 S.E.2d 692, 695 (2019)).
B. Grounds for Termination
- 11 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
The trial court may terminate a parent’s parental rights if, “[t]he parent has
willfully left the juvenile in foster care or placement outside 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 the juvenile.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2).
The first statutory element of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) is met when the
children have been in foster care for more than twelve months. Neither parent
contests that the boys entered care on 17 October 2023 and had remained in care over
eighteen months at the time of the termination hearing on 7 May 2025. The second
element is willfulness. “Willfulness is established when the respondent had the
ability to show reasonable progress, but was unwilling to make the effort. A finding
of willfulness is not precluded even if the respondent has made some efforts to regain
custody of the children.” In re O.C., 171 N.C. App. 457, 465, 615 S.E.2d 391, 396
(2005) (cleaned up). “Similarly, a parent’s prolonged inability to improve his or her
situation, despite some efforts and good intentions, will support a conclusion of lack
of reasonable progress.” In re K.J.D., 297 N.C. App. 49, 53, 909 S.E.2d 795, 800 (2024)
(quoting In re C.M.S., 184 N.C. App. 488, 494, 646 S.E.2d 592, 596 (2007)).
Our Supreme Court has held “that parental compliance
with a judicially adopted case plan is relevant in
determining whether grounds for termination exist
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) provided that the
objectives sought to be achieved by the case plan provision
in question address issues that contributed to causing the
problematic circumstances that led to the juvenile’s
- 12 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
removal from the parental home.”
In re K.J.D., 297 N.C. App. at 53, 909 S.E.2d at 800 (quoting In re T.M.L., 377 N.C.
369, 379, 856 S.E.2d 785, 793 (2021)).
1. Father’s Argument
Father challenges two findings of fact, 79 and 112, and argues that his progress
on his case plan refutes the conclusion that he failed to make reasonable progress in
correcting the conditions that led to removal. However, “[i]n a nonjury proceeding
such as this, the findings of fact ‘are conclusive on appeal when supported by any
competent evidence, even if the evidence could sustain contrary findings.’” In re C.M.,
273 N.C. App. 427, 430, 848 S.E.2d 749, 752 (2020), aff’d sub nom. In re C.M., 377
N.C. 105, 856 S.E.2d 96 (2021) (quoting In re Norris, 65 N.C. App. 269, 275, 310
S.E.2d 25, 29 (1983)).
[I]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine
the weight and credibility that should be given to all
evidence that is presented during the trial. A trial judge
“passes upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight
to be given their testimony and the reasonable inferences
to be drawn therefrom.”
In re K.W., 282 N.C. App. 283, 290, 871 S.E.2d 146, 152 (2022) (quoting Phelps v.
Phelps, 337 N.C. 344, 357, 466 S.E.2d 17, 25 (1994)). Additionally, “[t]he trial court
must itself determine what pertinent facts are actually established by the evidence
before it, and it is not for an appellate court to determine de novo the weight and
- 13 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
credibility to be given to evidence disclosed by the record on appeal.” Id. (quoting
Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712-13, 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
Finding of fact 79 states, “It was determined that [Father] is abusive to his
partner (the mother in this case) in front of children by calling her names and
arguing.” Father contends this finding was made in response to the social workers’
testimony, but her testimony does not support such a finding. We disagree. At no
point does the trial court limit its finding to the social worker’s testimony. Multiple
witnesses gave extensive testimony regarding Father’s behavior toward Mother.
Myers, the boys’ foster mother, testified that she observed Father yell and swear at
Mother in front of the boys. Social worker Kefer testified that Father called Mother
a “bitch” in front of at least one of the boys and that Mother reported both past and
present domestic violence when she was admitted to Cascade in December 2024 and
again at the assessment in January 2025. We hold there is ample clear, cogent and
convincing evidence that supports finding of fact 79.
Finding of fact 112 states, “[Kevin] has some issues and behaviors that appear
to be the result of being exposed to this chaotic and unhealthy relationship between
the parents. [David] is less impacted because he was removed at such a young age.”
Father contends finding of fact 112 was based on “vague speculation” and there is no
clear and convincing evidence of causation for Kevin’s behaviors. However, Myers
testified that when Kevin initially came into her care he was “fighting at daycare”
- 14 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
and that after visits with his parents “[Kevin] will hit his brother.” We hold this
testimony constitutes competent evidence to support the finding.
As the two contested findings are supported by competent evidence and the
other 146 uncontested adjudicatory findings of fact are binding on appeal we now
consider whether the findings of fact support the conclusion that Father willfully
failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions which led to removal.
In re J.M., 384 N.C. 584, 591, 887 S.E.2d 823, 828 (2023).
The boys were removed from the home due to concerns with drug use, mental
health, domestic violence, and a lack of housing. In order to work towards
reunification, the trial court ordered Father to: 1) develop a sufficient source of
income to support himself and develop a budget, 2) provide a safe and appropriate
home environment, 3) refrain from allowing mental health or substance abuse to
impact his parenting by completing a mental health and substance abuse assessment
and implement strategies, 4) attend a domestic violence program and have a home
free of domestic violence and chaos/discord, 5) demonstrate age appropriate discipline
and parenting skills, 6) demonstrate the ability to ensure the children’s medical needs
are met, and 7) provide a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the children.
Regarding Father’s progress in his case plan, the trial court’s findings include, in
pertinent part,
39. . . . When SW Kefer reached out to [Father], he lied
saying he did not know if the baby was born. However, he
was present at the hospital with the mother. The mother
- 15 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
informed [Father] when the child would be born.
46. The conduct the mother reported on February 6, 2024
continues to the present day. On December 4, 2024, the
father told the mother she could not come back to their
home during a court hearing. On December 12, 2024, the
father threw the mother’s shirts away when she was
leaving for treatment. While the mother and SW Kefer
were traveling to Charlotte to enroll the mother in
treatment, [Father] called SW Kefer when the mother
would not answer her own phone to check in. When the
mother visits with the boys for two hours once a month, the
father calls or has the mother call him. The mother
continues to [be] financially dependent on the father.
These patterns of conduct created and continue to create a
risk of harm to the mother and, therefore, to the children if
with the mother.
50. On December 4, 2024, the mother sought services
through Family Abuse Services. She reported that
[Father] threatened her and there was domestic and/or
family violence and property destruction.
62. [Father] would come to Hardee’s and try to intimidate
the mother when she was waiting on male customers.
76. [Father] enrolled in the domestic abusers group in
January of 2024. During his assessment, [Father] [made]
light of arguments with his partners. [Father] reported
that he has slapped, screamed at a partner but said partner
is not afraid.
81. [Father’s] absences extended the time he had to attend
the [domestic abuser’s] group. The group is twenty-six
sessions. By missing approximately nineteen sessions, the
program took about twice as long as it should have.
82. On January 27, 2025, [Father] completed his exit
interview. During the interview, he reported no problems
or concerns, successfully completed [the] quiz, stated he
has been non-violent and non-abusive. [Father] stated he
learned a lot. [Father] did not report kicking [Mother] out
- 16 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
of the shared home on December 4, 2024 or throwing her
clothing away on December 12, 2024. [Father] did not
report the domestic violence tendencies or control tactics
observed by Hardee’s employees. [Father] did not report
his ongoing difficulties managing his behaviors with social
work staff or arguing with the social worker in front of the
children.
96. Prior to the hearing, [Father] approached the Hardee’s
manager and attempted to discuss her testimony. The
Hardee’s manager reported this to Program Manager
Brown.
97. After the Hardee’s manager finished testifying,
[Father] called her a bitch under his breath. He then
followed her out of the courtroom. Program Manager
Brown was concerned about the safety of the witness so she
notified the bailiff.
113. [Father’s] anger and general affect hostile demeanor
is very apparent in his interactions with the social workers
and other service providers. SW Mapp-Wade has observed
[Father] becoming upset with [Mother] during a visit on
September 18, 2024.
142. When social work staff try to redirect concerning
behaviors, [Father] becomes defensive and angry with the
social worker. He will tell SE Kefer things like karma is
going to get you or you don’t have children or you can’t tell
me how to parent my kids. These outbursts can be over
minor issues such as telling [Father] not to give the young
children hard candy.
144. Although [Father] has participated in many activities,
he has failed to consistently and meaningfully
demonstrated what is taught. His anger creates an
injurious environment and substantial likelihood of
repetition of neglect.
These findings clearly support the trial court’s conclusion that although Father
may have participated in activities consistent with his court ordered plan and
- 17 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
improved his housing and drug use, he still had not made the necessary progress to
correct one of the most important issues for which the boys were removed, domestic
violence. “‘[A] case plan is not just a checklist,’ and parents are ‘required to
demonstrate acknowledgment and understanding of why the juvenile entered DSS
custody as well as changed behaviors.’” In re J.M.V., 296 N.C. App. 374, 387, 909
S.E.2d 347, 357 (2024) (quoting In re R.L.R., 381 N.C. 863, 875, 874 S.E.2d 579, 589
(2022)). During his exit interview after a year of domestic violence classes, Father
failed to acknowledge or understand his domestic violence behaviors. Additionally,
he continued to lie to social workers and providers and display domestic violence
behaviors towards Mother as well as hostility to DSS social workers and staff. He
even continued to act out in anger during the termination proceedings when he cursed
at and attempted to follow one of DSS’ witnesses.
Father clearly failed to demonstrate an understanding of the detrimental
impact his anger and violence have on the children. Here, the trial court’s findings
sufficiently support its conclusion that grounds exist to terminate Father’s parental
rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2).
Because “a single ground for terminating parental rights is sufficient to
support a termination order, this Court can uphold the trial court’s order based on
one ground without reviewing any remaining ground.” In re C.K.I., 379 N.C. 207,
210, 864 S.E.2d 323, 326 (2021). Thus, we do not address Father’s other arguments.
- 18 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
2. Mother’s Arguments
Mother does not contest any of the trial court’s findings of fact. Therefore, the
148 uncontested findings are binding on appeal. In re J.M., 384 N.C. at 591, 887
S.E.2d at 828. Rather, Mother argues the trial court’s findings do not support the
conclusion that she failed to make reasonable progress because she enrolled in
Cascades, a residential treatment center, and has actively participated in the
treatment program. We applaud Mother’s commitment to the Cascades program and
acknowledge what an incredible difference sobriety can make for Mother and her
children. However, we cannot dismiss the findings of fact from which the trial court
concluded Mother had failed to make reasonable progress.
The children entered DSS custody on 17 October 2023 due to concerns with
drug use, mental health, domestic violence, and a lack of housing. In order to reunify
with the children, Mother was ordered to 1) develop a sufficient source of income to
support herself and the children’s basic needs, 2) provide a safe and appropriate home
environment, 3) refrain from allowing mental health or substance abuse to impact
her parenting by completing a mental health and substance abuse assessment and
implement strategies, 4) attend a domestic violence program and have a home free of
domestic violence and chaos/discord, 5) refrain from illegal activities, 6) demonstrate
age appropriate discipline and parenting skills by attending a parenting program and
implementing strategies during visitation, 7) demonstrate the ability to ensure the
- 19 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
children’s medical needs are met, and 8) provide a reasonable portion of the cost of
care for the children.
At the permanency planning hearing conducted on 4 December 2024, the trial
court changed the permanent plan from reunification to adoption after determining
Mother had made no progress toward reunification and the children had been in DSS
custody for more than twelve months. Mother was still using drugs and continuing
to use drugs while pregnant. Mother still resided with Father even though she
reported continuing domestic violence. She had lied to DSS social workers about her
employment status and did not have separate housing from Father. After more than
a year, she had made no marked progress in correcting the conditions which led to
her children’s removal.
Additionally, even after entering the residential treatment program at
Cascades and receiving treatment for her drug addiction, she continued to maintain
a relationship with Father. The trial court found
[Mother] has not demonstrated her ability to stay clear of
relationships with domestic violence. She has reported her
relationship with [Father] to be co-parenting only.
However, she acknowledges talking with him daily. At the
end of conversations, she tells [Father] she loves him. She
is [a]ware of his ongoing anger issues but defends him,
stating that he is trying.
Mother’s visitation with her sons was significantly limited yet she chose to call Father
during her visits. She also facilitated contact between Kimberly and Father in
violation of the trial court’s order for DSS to facilitate all contact between Father and
- 20 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
Kimberly. Mother’s continued engagement with Father despite his continued abusive
behavior is competent evidence that even when in residential care with housing, food
and support provided, Mother still had not addressed domestic violence, one of the
primary reasons the children were removed from the home.
Our Supreme Court has held that “last-minute attempts” made after DSS files
petitions to terminate are “insufficient to constitute reasonable progress under N.C.
[Gen. Stat.] § 7B-1111(a)(2).” In re T.M.L., 377 N.C. 369, 380, 856 S.E.2d 785, 793
(2021). Further, “‘a trial court has ample authority to determine that a parent’s
extremely limited progress in correcting the conditions leading to removal adequately
supports a determination that a parent’s parental rights in a particular child are
subject to termination pursuant to N.C. [Gen. Stat.] § 7B-1111(a)(2).’” In re A.S.D.,
378 N.C. 425, 434, 861 S.E.2d 875, 882-83 (2021) (quoting In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372,
385, 831 S.E.2d 305, 314 (2019)).
Here, the trial court’s findings sufficiently support its conclusion that grounds
existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2)
because Mother failed to make any significant progress in correcting the conditions
that led to the children’s removal and the children had been in care for over a year
when the petitions were filed. Mother did not begin making any significant progress
until after DSS filed the petitions to terminate. She entered the Cascades inpatient
treatment program; however, even with the support of the Cascades program Mother
still had not made progress with domestic violence issues, in that she continued in a
- 21 -
IN RE: D.M.D. & K.W.D.
Opinion of the Court
relationship with Father fraught with domestic violence. Despite Mother’s progress
on her case plan, she failed to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the
children.
Because “a finding of only one ground is necessary to support a termination of
parental rights,” we only need address one of the parents’ arguments. In re A.R.A.,
373 N.C. 190, 194, 835 S.E.2d 417, 421 (2019). Therefore, we do not address Mother’s
additional arguments.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating
Mother’s parental rights to her sons, Kevin and David, and terminating Father’s
parental rights to his son, David.
AFFIRMED.
Judges COLLINS and FLOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
- 22 -