IN THE MATTER OF: Mecklenburg County
A.B., J.M., and A.M., Nos. 04 J 465-67
Minor Children.
Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, by J. Edward
Yeager, Jr., for petitioner-appellee.
Attorney Advocate Jeannie Brown for the Guardian ad Litem-
appellee.
Leslie C. Rawls for respondent-appellant.
LEVINSON, Judge.
A.B. (respondent) appeals from the trial court's order which
terminated her parental rights to her minor children (A.B., J.M.
and A.M.). We affirm.
On 10 May 2004, the Mecklenburg County Youth and Family
Services (petitioner) filed a juvenile petition alleging that the
three children were dependent and neglected. Pursuant to a non-
secure order also entered on 10 May 2004, the children were placed
with their maternal grandmother. Following a hearing on 7 July
2004, the children were adjudicated to be neglected and dependant.
Petitioner ultimately filed petitions to terminate parental rights
to the three children on 22 March 2005. The trial court conducted a hearing on the petitions to
terminate parental rights on 10 November 2005. In its order
terminating parental rights entered on 5 December 2005, the trial
court found that:
14. [C.D.] is a registered sex offender. He
also has substance abuse problems and a
history of selling drugs.
. . . .
16. In September 2005, [respondent] admitted
to the YFS social worker . . . that she and
[C.D.] were still together. [Respondent's]
neighbor testified that she saw [C.D.] at
[respondent's] home as recently as the day
prior to the TPR proceedings, that being
November 9, 2005.
. . . .
26. None of the parents have provided any
monetary support to the maternal grandmother,
who is caring for the children.
. . . .
30. Previously the [respondent] held drugs for
the father. She allowed [C.D.] to cook drugs
in her home while [D's] siblings were present.
. . . .
37. The respondent mother has made a choice to
continue a relationship with a drug dealer
over her own children. All of these children
are placed with their sibling, [D.D.], in a
placement with their maternal grandmother,
[T.H.]. Ms. [H.] has testified that, if
parental rights are terminated, it would be
her intention to adopt the children; however
she would continue to allow the respondent
mother to visit with the children.
The trial court concluded that:
2. The respondent parents have neglected these
juveniles as that term is defined in NCGS §
7B-101(15) in that they have failed to provideproper care, supervision and discipline for
the juveniles. . . .
3. The respondent mother was made aware on
numerous occasions that she might lose her
children if she continued a relationship with
[C.D.].
4. The children have been placed in the
custody of Mecklenburg County Department of
Social Services[,] and the respondent parents,
for a continuous period of more than six (6)
months next preceding the filing of the
petition, have willfully failed for such
period to pay a reasonable portion of the cost
of care for said children, although physically
and financially able to do so.
. . . .
6. The best interests of the above-named
juveniles would be served by the termination
of parental rights of both respondent parents
with respect to these juveniles.
The trial court then ordered the termination of the parental rights
of respondent and the respective fathers of the children. From the
trial court's order, respondent appeals.
Respondent's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
abused its discretion when it held that the children's best
interests were served by terminating her parental rights. She
concedes that the evidence tended to show she had not paid support
and that lack of support is grounds to terminate parental rights.
Because the prospective adoptive parent (the maternal grandmother)
does not intend to sever all relationship between the children and
respondent, however, respondent argues the same result could have
been reached by a custody order without severing the rights which
arise from the natal relationship. Following an adjudication in which the trial court finds one
or more grounds “authorizing a termination of the parental rights
of a parent exist, the court shall issue an order terminating the
parental rights of such parent . . . 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 effective 1 October 2005 and
applicable to petitions filed on or after that date). If a trial
court's finding of one or more of the statutory grounds is
supported by evidence in the record, its decision to terminate
parental rights is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. In
re McMillon, 143 N.C. App. 402, 408, 546 S.E.2d 169, 174 (2001).
In its order, the trial court found respondent continued a
relationship with an individual who was a registered sex offender
with substance abuse problems. Respondent permitted this
individual to “cook” and distribute illegal drugs in the presence
of her children in the home. Respondent has provided no monetary
support to the maternal grandmother who has been caring for the
children. Her assertion that the children may benefit from the
trial court not severing the “many rights that arise from this
natal relationship” does not demonstrate that the trial court's
best interests determination is unsound. Based on the foregoing,
this Court is not inclined to find that the trial court abused its
discretion in determining that terminating the parental rights of
respondent was in the best interests of the children. This
assignment of error is therefore overruled.
Respondent failed to set out her remaining assignments of
error in her brief. Because she has neither cited any authority
nor stated any reason or argument in support of those assignments
of error, they are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
Affirmed.
Judges
TYSON and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***