IN THE MATTER OF Y.Q.M., Sampson County
A minor child No. 00 J 29
Law Office of Benjamin R. Warrick, by Corinne A. Railey, for
petitioner-appellee Sampson County Department of Social
Services.
Manning Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by S. Nicole Taylor, for
petitioner-appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Winifred H. Dillon, for respondent-appellant Shanita Fryar.
McGEE, Judge.
Respondent appeals from the trial court's amended judgment
terminating her parental rights to the minor child, Y.Q.M., who was
born on 26 March 1998. The Sampson County Department of Social
Services (DSS) filed a petition on 12 May 2000, alleging that
Y.Q.M. was a neglected juvenile. The petition alleged that
respondent was hearing voices which "[told] her to hurt people[,]"
and that she had expressed her willingness to harm Y.Q.M. if the
voices told her to do so. It was further alleged that respondent
"hit [Y.Q.M.] in the stomach with her fist recently knocking her
down." By order entered 12 May 2000, the trial court grantednonsecure custody to DSS, which placed Y.Q.M. in foster care. Upon
respondent's admission to the petition's allegations, the trial
court entered an adjudication of neglect on 28 June 2000,
maintaining DSS's custody of Y.Q.M.
In a review order filed 30 April 2001, the trial court found
that respondent had failed to obtain mental health counseling as
recommended by her psychological evaluation and had not found
stable housing. The trial court noted that, during a weekend
visitation with respondent, Y.Q.M. "suffered from a spanking or a
hitting in the buttocks areas by some unknown person, which caused
marks shaped like a hand to be left on the child and bruising[.]"
The trial court ceased respondent's weekend visitations with Y.Q.M.
but allowed supervised visitations at DSS offices.
The trial court ordered on 29 October 2001 that respondent's
weekend visitations with Y.Q.M. be resumed with a goal of returning
Y.Q.M. to respondent's physical custody. The trial court's order
further contemplated that, "assuming physical placement goes well,
legal custody should be delivered to [respondent] after 3 months."
DSS placed Y.Q.M. in respondent's physical custody on 25 January
2002. In a review order entered 18 April 2002, however, the trial
court found that respondent "has yet to obtain a stable place to
live[,]" and respondent is "currently residing with her grandmother
and has a third child due in August." The trial court concluded
"[t]hat physical placement with [respondent] shall continue but
[respondent] must continue with progress towards stability." DSS
retained legal custody of Y.Q.M. DSS was unable to locate respondent or Y.Q.M. for a period of
time following the 18 April 2002 order. DSS removed Y.Q.M. from
respondent's physical custody and placed Y.Q.M. back in foster care
on 26 September 2002. On motion by DSS, the trial court entered a
review order on 17 October 2002, which changed the permanent plan
from reunification to termination of respondent's parental rights.
The trial court found that respondent had received no treatment at
Duplin-Sampson Mental Health since February of 2002, and had failed
to attend her scheduled appointments on 3 May 2002, 13 May 2002, 10
June 2002, 26 July 2002, and 10 September 2002. The trial court
also noted respondent's admission that "she [was] living with other
people at this time and [had] no job and gave birth to a son on
July 23, 2002." DSS filed a petition to terminate respondent's
parental rights to Y.Q.M. on 12 June 2003, alleging as grounds for
termination that respondent "has been adjudicated to have neglected
[Y.Q.M.] and . . . there is good cause to believe that clear,
cogent and convincing evidence exists to support that such neglect
would be repetitious and ongoing[,]" see N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-1111(a)(1) (2005), and that respondent "willfully left [Y.Q.M.]
in foster care placement outside the home for more than 12 months
without showing to the satisfaction of the Court that reasonable
progress has been made to correct the conditions which led to the
removal of [Y.Q.M.,]" see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2005).
Respondent filed an answer to the petition admitting the grounds
for termination alleged therein but denying the allegation that
termination of her parental rights was in the best interests ofY.Q.M.
At the beginning of the 9 September 2004 termination hearing,
respondent's counsel reiterated respondent's admission to the two
grounds for termination alleged by DSS in its petition, as follows:
COURT: What grounds [for termination] do you
allege?
[COUNSEL FOR DSS]: Yes, Your Honor, pursuant
to . . . [N.C.G.S. §] 7B-1111 . . . . We're
alleging grounds that there was an
adjudication of neglect . . . and good cause
to believe that . . . such neglect would be
repetitious and ongoing, that was admitted.
Additionally, we alleged that [Y.Q.M.] has
been left outside of the home for twelve
months in addition to the neglect and that
also was admitted in reply to the termination
--
COURT: All the grounds that you alleged --?
[COUNSEL FOR DSS]: Have been admitted except
that it is not in the best interest of
[Y.Q.M.] for parental rights to be terminated.
COURT: Do you agree with that, [counsel]?
[COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT]: Yeah I agree with
that part.
COURT: So in that case we can proceed with the
best interest of [Y.Q.M.] today.
[COUNSEL FOR DSS]: Your Honor, we ask that
based on those pleadings, we can . . . find
those grounds [for termination]? Based on
those pleadings?
COURT: All right.
A DSS caseworker testified that Y.Q.M. had been in DSS custody
since May of 2000 and was currently in an adoptive foster
placement. She noted Y.Q.M.'s behavioral problems had subsided
following the placement and that Y.Q.M. was receiving therapy andmedication for oppositional behaviors and hyperactivity. The
caseworker characterized the adoptive foster placement as a "[v]ery
good home" which was "better and safer" for Y.Q.M. than living with
respondent. She opined that termination of respondent's parental
rights was in Y.Q.M.'s best interest. The caseworker further
testified that respondent had been allowed supervised visitation
with Y.Q.M. but had "never called and requested any visitation"
since Y.Q.M. was removed from respondent's home in September of
2002. Respondent stopped going to mental health treatment "a
couple of years ago[.]" On cross-examination, the caseworker
acknowledged respondent's completion of parenting and anger
management classes, which led to Y.Q.M.'s return to respondent's
home on 25 January 2002. Y.Q.M. was removed from respondent's home
in September of 2002, based on respondent's failure to maintain
stable housing and the inability of DSS to locate respondent and
Y.Q.M.
Y.Q.M.'s foster mother testified that she began caring for
Y.Q.M. when Y.Q.M. was two years old, and that Y.Q.M. was now six
years old and in the first grade. She testified that Y.Q.M. was
"pretty much an 'A' student" and that she was having success in
addressing Y.Q.M.'s behavioral problems with therapy. The foster
mother testified she and her husband had been married for
thirty-two years and had five children in their home, who were
"very close" to each other. The foster mother testified she stayed
at home with the children while her husband worked. She described
Y.Q.M. as "a very loving child" who "demands a lot of attention and. . . gets it." The foster mother stated she and her husband
wished to adopt Y.Q.M.
In its amended judgment terminating respondent's parental
rights, the trial court found, inter alia, that Y.Q.M. was
adjudicated a neglected juvenile on 13 June 2000, and "has been
placed in a foster home care and [has been a] ward of the Court
since May 12, 2000 with the exception of a short period of time
between January, 2002 and September, 2002 when [Y.Q.M.] was
returned to [respondent][.]" The trial court further found that
respondent had not made contact with Y.Q.M. since September of
2002, despite being allowed supervised visitation, and that
respondent "failed to complete her case plan in that she has failed
to follow-up with her mental health assessment and evaluation."
Finally, the trial court found respondent "filed a verified answer
to the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights admitting the
allegations" regarding the grounds for termination but denying that
termination was in Y.Q.M.'s best interest. Based on its findings,
the trial court concluded "by clear, cogent and convincing
evidence" as follows:
1. That [respondent] has neglected [Y.Q.M.]
and [Y.Q.M.] was so decreed to be neglected on
June 13, 2000, and clear, cogent and
convincing evidence exists to support that
such neglect would [be] repetitious and
ongoing.
2. That no evidence has been presented that
it is in the best interest of [Y.Q.M.] to
forego termination of parental rights.
3. That it is in the best interest of
[Y.Q.M.] that parental rights be terminated.
4. That [respondent] has willfully left
[Y.Q.M.] in foster care 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 [Y.Q.M.].
Respondent appeals.
Respondent first challenges, as not supported by the evidence,
the trial court's following finding of fact:
That [respondent] filed a verified answer to
the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights
admitting the allegations contained in
Paragraph[] . . . [VII] . . . .
She contends that, "despite her trial counsel's apparent concession
. . . at the hearing," Paragraph VII did not allege facts that
could be "admitted or denied, but instead constitute[d] a prayer
for relief" by DSS. Therefore, respondent's admission amounted
only to an acknowledgment that DSS was seeking to terminate her
parental rights. In the alternative, respondent claims the trial
court erred by considering her answer, because it was not signed by
her attorney as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 11(a).
We find no merit to this contention. Paragraph VII of the
termination petition alleged as follows:
That [DSS] desires that the Court terminate
the parental right[s] of the Respondent . . .
to [Y.Q.M.] pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 7B-
1111 based on the following grounds:
(1) N.C.G.S. Section 7B-1111(a)(1) in that the
Respondent has been adjudicated to have
neglected [Y.Q.M.] and given the lack of
progress of Respondent . . ., there is good
cause to believe that clear, cogent and
convincing evidence exists to support that
such neglect would be repetitious and ongoing;
and (2) N.C.G.S. Section 7B-1111(a)(2) in that
Respondent . . . has willfully left [Y.Q.M.]
in foster care placement outside the home for
more than 12 months without showing to the
satisfaction of the Court that reasonable
progress has been made to correct the
conditions which led to the removal of
[Y.Q.M.] in that Respondent . . . has made
little or any progress towards the case plan
for reunification with [Y.Q.M.] such that in
an Order of the District Court of Sampson
County dated October 15, 2002, the Court
ordered that termination of parental rights
proceeding[s] begin.
Paragraph VII does assert DSS's desire to terminate respondent's
parental rights; however, it further alleges the existence of two
specific factual bases for termination. It alleges grounds for
termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), "in that . . .
Respondent has been adjudicated to have neglected [Y.Q.M.] and
given the lack of progress of Respondent . . ., there is good cause
to believe that clear, cogent and convincing evidence exists to
support that such neglect would be repetitious and ongoing[.]" It
further alleges grounds for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1111(a)(2), "in that Respondent . . . has willfully left [Y.Q.M.]
in foster care placement outside the home for more than 12 months
without showing to the satisfaction of the Court that reasonable
progress has been made to correct the conditions which led to the
removal of [Y.Q.M.][.]" We note that respondent stated in her
answer: "The allegations contained in Paragraph VII of the Petition
are admitted." (emphasis added). Moreover, respondent's counsel
confirmed the nature of this admission by conceding the existence
of the alleged grounds for termination at the beginning of the
termination hearing. The trial court's finding accurately depictsrespondent's admission to the allegations in Paragraph VII and is
thus fully supported by the evidence of record.
To the extent respondent relies upon her attorney's failure to
sign her answer to challenge the trial court's finding, we conclude
that her failure to object to a defect appearing on the face of her
own pleading waived any objection thereto. See Whitehurst v.
Corey, 88 N.C. App. 746, 748, 364 S.E.2d 728, 729-30 (1988). By
verifying her answer, respondent invited the trial court to
consider the pleading and is estopped to contest its validity on
appeal. See Brittain v. Blankenship, 244 N.C. 518, 521, 94 S.E.2d
489, 491 (1956).
Respondent next challenges the trial court's conclusions that
grounds for termination existed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and
(2). She claims these conclusions are not supported by clear,
cogent and convincing evidence in the record or by the findings of
fact in the termination order. Because the statute requires a
determination by the trial court of a likelihood of future neglect
by the parent or of the parent's failure to make reasonable
progress, respondent insists "that stipulations or admissions by
the parties that the requisite grounds exist cannot satisfy the
statutory requirements."
An admission by a party in a responsive pleading is a judicial
admission and is thus "conclusive and binding upon the parties."
Rich, Rich & Nance v. Carolina Constr. Corp., 153 N.C. App. 149,
153, 570 S.E.2d 212, 215 (2002). "The effect of a judicial
admission is to establish the fact for the purposes of the case andto eliminate it entirely from the issues to be tried." Rollins v.
Miller Roofing Co., 55 N.C. App. 158, 162, 284 S.E.2d 697, 700
(1981). In this case, respondent admitted in her answer that
grounds for termination existed under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and
(2), as alleged by DSS in Paragraph VII of its petition. Her
counsel reiterated respondent's admission to these grounds in open
court at the beginning of the termination hearing. In light of
respondent's judicial admission on the issue, there was "no need
for further findings of fact on the issue of whether grounds
existed to terminate respondent's parental rights." In re I.S.,
170 N.C. App. 78, 86, 611 S.E.2d 467, 472 (2005); cf. In re
Faircloth, 153 N.C. App. 565, 576-77, 571 S.E.2d 65, 73 (2002)
(finding that the respondent's admission to one of the alleged
grounds for termination rendered harmless any error in the trial
court's findings of additional grounds).
Notwithstanding her admission to the grounds for termination
alleged in the petition, respondent further claims the trial court
violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(e) by failing to hold an
adjudicatory hearing. In her assignments of error, however,
respondent makes no reference to the trial court's supposed non-
compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1109(e). She challenges the
trial court's conclusions that grounds for termination existed
under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) solely on the ground that
they are "not supported by the trial court's findings of fact or by
the evidence." Because the issue was not raised by respondent in
her assignments of error in the record on appeal, any argumentregarding the trial court's adherence to statutory procedures is
not properly before this Court. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) (limiting
scope of appellate review to "those assignments of error set out in
the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10"). We note
that, although a proceeding to terminate parental rights entails
both adjudicatory and dispositional stages, there is no requirement
that the trial court bifurcate the proceedings into separate
hearings. In re Shepard, 162 N.C. App. 215, 221, 591 S.E.2d 1,
5-6, disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 543, 599 S.E.2d 42 (2004). In
this case, the trial court received evidence from the parties
beyond respondent's admissions and entered separate conclusions
that grounds for termination were shown "by clear, cogent and
convincing evidence" and that termination was in Y.Q.M.'s best
interests. Accordingly, we find no error.
The record on appeal includes additional assignments of error
not addressed by respondent in her brief to this Court. Pursuant
to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6), we deem them abandoned.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***