IN THE MATTER OF: Buncombe County
H.S.M. and S.S.H.,
Nos. 04 J 236-37
Minor Children.
Lisa M. Morrison for Buncombe County Department of Social
Services petitioner-appellee
.
Judy N. Rudolph for Guardian Ad Litem.
Leslie C. Rawls for respondent-appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Respondent-father appeals from an order terminating his
parental rights. We affirm. H.S.M. was born in May 2000, and
S.S.H. was born in April 1999. Respondent is their father. From
August 2003 through January 2004, the Buncombe County Department of
Social Services
(“DSS”) received several reports indicating that
the children were being neglected by their mother due to her abuse
of drugs. On 7 April 2004, the children were placed in the care of
DSS by a non-secure custody order. An adjudicatory hearing was
held on 27 May 2004. Respondent did not appear at the hearing and
his whereabouts was unknown. On 8 July 2004, nunc pro tunc 27 May
2004, the children were adjudicated neglected and dependent
juveniles in that they did not receive proper care, supervision ordiscipline from their parents, that they lived in an environment
injurious to their welfare, and the parents were unable to provide
for their care or supervision
.
On 22 September 2004, petitions to terminate parental rights
were filed by DSS alleging that respondent had neglected and
abandoned the children and had failed to establish his paternity.
On 28 and 30 March 2005, hearings were held on the petition to
terminate respondent's parental rights.
On 27 April 2005, the
trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate
respondent's parental rights. The trial court found that
respondent had neglected the children and that it was “reasonably
probable” that there would be a repetition of neglect. The court
cited respondent's “serious, longstanding untreated substance abuse
problems and anger management problems” and his failure to comply
with services offered by DSS to alleviate these problems.
Accordingly, the court concluded that it was in the best interests
of the children that respondent's parental rights be terminated.
Respondent now appeals.
Respondent's sole argument on appeal is
that the trial court
abused its discretion by concluding that termination of his
parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
Respondent contends that he had begun to address his substance
abuse problems and further also cites Bost v. Van Nortwick, 117
N.C. App. 1, 449 S.E.2d 911 (1994), arguing that the trial court's
finding that the children were doing well in their current, pre-
adoptive foster care placement was insufficient to satisfy the bestinterest requirement for termination in light of his “paramount
rights” as their father.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we affirm.
Once the trial court has found that
grounds exist to terminate parental rights, “the court shall issue
an order terminating the parental rights of such parent with
respect to the juvenile unless the court shall further determine
that the best interests of the juvenile require that the parental
rights of the parent not be terminated.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
1110(a) (2003) (amended 2005 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 398, s. 17). The
trial court's decision to terminate parental rights at the
disposition stage is discretionary. See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C.
101, 110, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984). “A ruling based on a trial
court's discretion will not be reversed without a showing of
manifest abuse of that discretion.” In re Black, 76 N.C. App. 106,
110, 332 S.E.2d 85, 87 (1985).
Here, the trial court concluded in its discretion that it was
in the best interests of the child that respondent's parental
rights be terminated. Respondent contends that the court abused
its discretion in making this conclusion, citing Bost. However, we
find Bost to be distinguishable from the instant case. This Court
in Bost stated that “a finding that the children are well settled
in their new family unit . . . does not alone support a finding
that it is in the best interest of the children to terminate
respondent's parental rights.” Bost, 117 N.C. App. at 8, 449
S.E.2d at 915 (emphasis added). Here, however, the finding thatthe children were doing well with their foster families was not the
sole ground in support of the court's conclusion that termination
was in the children's best interests.
The trial court also based
its conclusion on findings that respondent had a long history of
drug abuse, had been unable to maintain sobriety, and had failed to
comply with court orders aimed at addressing his drug abuse. The
court found that respondent had failed to attend treatment and
continued to abuse drugs, as evidenced by criminal activities used
to finance drug purchases. The court also noted that respondent
was incarcerated and not projected to be released for approximately
two years, and was unable to provide any placement for the
children. Furthermore, the court found that respondent had never
provided consistent care for the children, and has been
incarcerated in other states for most of their lives. Finally, the
court found that respondent had not seen the children since January
2004, had not contributed any financial support, and had failed to
send any cards, gifts or letters to the children.
Thus, we hold
that based on these findings, as well as the Court's finding that
the children were doing well in their pre-adoptive placement, the
trial court could reasonably conclude that termination of
respondent's parental rights was in the best interests of the
children.
Accordingly, the order terminating respondent's parental
rights is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges HUDSON and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***