In re J.S. ( 2020 )

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 92A20
Filed 11 December 2020
IN THE MATTER OF: J.S., J.S., J.S.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from order entered on 26
November 2019 by Judge Aretha V. Blake in District Court, Mecklenburg County.
This matter was calendared in the Supreme Court on 23 November 2020 but
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
No brief filed for petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social
Services, Youth and Family Services Division.
Kip David Nelson for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Lisa Anne Wagner for respondent-appellant mother.
MORGAN, Justice.
Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her
parental rights to her minor children, “James,” “Jiles,” and “Jacyn.”1 Respondent-
mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. After an independent review, we conclude
that the issues raised by counsel in respondent-mother’s brief do not entitle her to
1 We use pseudonyms for respondent-mother’s children to protect their privacy and
for ease of reading.
IN RE J.S., J.S., J.S.
Opinion of the Court
relief and affirm the trial court’s decision to terminate respondent-mother’s parental
rights.
James and Jiles entered the nonsecure custody of Mecklenburg County
Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services Division (YFS) upon the
agency’s 15 March 2018 filing of a juvenile petition which alleged that the children
were neglected and dependent. In the petition, YFS represented that it had been
involved with the family for several years, that respondent-mother and the children’s
father had an extensive history of domestic violence, and that respondent-mother’s
parental rights to another child had previously been terminated. The petition went
on to detail recent incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by the father against
respondent-mother, alleging that some of them occurred in the presence of James and
Jiles. The trial court entered an order adjudicating the two children as neglected
juveniles on 5 June 2018.
Jacyn was born in September 2018. On 31 January 2019, YFS filed a petition
alleging that Jacyn was a neglected juvenile. In this petition, YFS alleged that
respondent-mother had multiple pending criminal charges, that YFS had received a
report regarding another incident of domestic violence between respondent-mother
and the children’s father, and that the parents had not made progress addressing the
issues which led to the previous neglect adjudication regarding James and Jiles. YFS
was granted nonsecure custody of Jacyn and the agency placed her with her two
-2-
IN RE J.S., J.S., J.S.
Opinion of the Court
brothers. Jacyn was adjudicated as a neglected juvenile by virtue of an order entered
by the trial court on 12 March 2019.
YFS filed motions in the cause to terminate respondent-mother’s parental
rights to Jacyn on 21 June 2019 and to James and Jiles on 28 August 2019. Both
motions alleged the same four grounds for termination: (1) neglect, (2) willful failure
to pay a reasonable portion of the children’s cost of care, (3) abandonment, and (4)
respondent-mother’s parental rights with respect to another child of hers had been
terminated involuntarily and she lacked the ability or willingness to establish a safe
home. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), (7), (9) (2019). The motions were based on
substantially the same allegations. In the motions, YFS detailed the circumstances
that led to the prior neglect adjudications for the three children and, in light of the
submitted information, alleged that respondent-mother had failed to make adequate
progress with respect to the case plan requirements that were established to
remediate those circumstances.
The motions to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights to the three
children were heard on 30 October 2019. Respondent-mother was not present at the
hearing. After the evidence was presented, the trial court found that respondent-
mother’s parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(1), (7), and (9) (2019): respectively, neglect, abandonment, and the parental
rights of respondent-mother with respect to another child of hers had been
terminated involuntarily and respondent-mother lacked the ability or willingness to
-3-
IN RE J.S., J.S., J.S.
Opinion of the Court
establish a safe home. The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence of
the existence of the alleged ground to terminate addressed in N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(3) that respondent-mother had willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of
the cost of care for the three juveniles. Lastly, the trial court concluded that
termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to James, Jiles, and Jacyn was in
the children’s best interests. The trial court entered its written order memorializing
its decision to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights to all three children on
26 November 2019.2 Respondent-mother appeals.3
Respondent-mother’s appellate counsel has filed a no-merit brief on
respondent-mother’s behalf pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Counsel has also advised respondent-mother of the right to file
pro se written arguments on respondent-mother’s own behalf with this Court and has
provided respondent-mother with the documents necessary to do so. Respondent-
mother did not submit any written arguments.4
2 The order also terminated  the parental rights of the father of James, Jiles, and
Jacyn. He did not appeal and therefore is not a party in the matter before this Court.
3 The record on appeal does not include proof that respondent-mother’s notice of
appeal was served on the other parties as required by N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(b). However, neither
YFS nor the guardian ad litem raised this issue, and thus it has been waived. See Hale v.
Afro-Am. Arts Int’l, Inc., 

335 N.C. 231

, 232, 

436 S.E.2d 588

, 589 (1993) (“[A] party upon whom
service of notice of appeal is required may waive the failure of service by not raising the issue
by motion or otherwise and by participating without objection in the appeal[.]”).
4 YFS did not submit any appellate materials to this Court, but the guardian ad litem
did file a brief, agreeing with respondent-mother’s counsel that there are no meritorious
claims upon which respondent-mother could prevail.
-4-
IN RE J.S., J.S., J.S.
Opinion of the Court
In the no-merit brief, respondent-mother’s counsel concedes that there was an
adequate basis for the trial court’s adjudication regarding the mother’s inability to
establish a safe home. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(9) (providing that a parent’s rights can
be terminated when parental rights for another child have been terminated and “the
parent lacks the ability or willingness to establish a safe home”). Respondent-
mother’s parental rights to another child had been terminated in an earlier case; the
trial court concluded that respondent-mother was unable to establish a safe home in
the present case. In light of respondent-mother’s history of domestic violence, mental
health issues, incarceration, and unstable housing, this determination by the trial
court was appropriate. See In re T.N.H., 

372 N.C. 403

, 412–13, 

831 S.E.2d 54

, 61–62
(2019) (affirming termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(9)
based on the mother’s history of incarceration, unstable housing, and failure to
complete a case plan). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding and
concluding that a basis for termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights
existed.
As to disposition, counsel for respondent-mother also concedes that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that termination of respondent-mother’s
parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. This decision can only be
reversed if “the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary
that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re A.R.A., 

373 N.C. 190

, 199, 

835 S.E.2d 417

, 423 (2019). A trial court is required to consider several
-5-
IN RE J.S., J.S., J.S.
Opinion of the Court
statutory factors and ultimately determine whether termination is in a child’s best
interests. N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a); In re C.J.C., 

839 S.E.2d 742

, 746 (2020). The trial
court here properly considered the pertinent factors and aptly exercised its discretion.
We conduct an independent review of any issues identified in a no-merit brief
filed pursuant to Rule 3.1(e). In re L.E.M., 

372 N.C. 396

, 402, 

831 S.E.2d 341

, 345
(2019). In the brief filed on behalf of respondent-mother in this appeal, respondent-
mother’s counsel discusses four issues that could arguably support an appeal, yet
acknowledges that the appeal ultimately lacks merit due to the existence of a ground
to allow termination of parental rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(9). Based upon
our review of the issues identified in the no-merit brief, we are satisfied that the trial
court’s 26 November 2019 order was based on proper legal grounds. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
-6-