IN THE MATTER OF:
Catawba County
No. 04 J 112-16
C.E.R., A.M.R., J.E.I.,
A.R.I. and S.N.I.,
Minor children
J. David Abernethy for Catawba County Department of Social
Services, petitioner-appellee.
Christopher G. Daniel for guardian ad litem, appellee.
Michael E. Casterline for respondent-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Respondent, the mother of five minor children, appeals from an
order terminating her parental rights to them.
Petitioner, Catawba County Department of Social Services,
filed a juvenile petition on 17 May 2004 alleging the children were
abused, neglected and dependent. The children were adjudicated to
be dependent and neglected and were placed in the custody of
petitioner on 24 August 2004. On 24 October 2005 petitioner filed
the instant petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. As
grounds for termination of respondent's rights, petitioner alleged
that respondent (1) neglected the children; and (2) willfully leftthe children in foster care or placement outside the home for more
than twelve months without making reasonable progress in correcting
the conditions which led to the removal of the children. The court
held a hearing upon the petition on 7 February 2006, at the
conclusion of which the court rendered an order terminating
respondent's parental rights on the grounds alleged in the
petition. The court entered written adjudicatory and dispositional
orders on 1 March 2006. Respondent filed notice of appeal on 3
March 2006.
Respondent brings forward three assignments of error.
First, respondent contends the court erred in terminating her
parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(1) on the
ground of neglect because petitioner only presented evidence of
past neglect and not current conditions and the court failed to
find that neglect would be likely to continue.
One's parental rights to a juvenile may be terminated pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) if one has abused or neglected
the juvenile. A neglected juvenile is one who “does not receive
proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's parent,
guardian, custodian, or caretaker; or who has been abandoned; or
who is not provided necessary medical care; or who is not provided
necessary remedial care; or who lives in an environment injurious
to the juvenile's welfare . . ..” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15)
(2005). Termination of one's parental rights on the ground of
neglect must be based on conditions in existence at the time of the
termination hearing and may not be based solely upon conditionsexistent in the past. In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 714-16, 319
S.E.2d 227, 231-32 (1984). Notwithstanding, the petitioner need
not present evidence of neglect subsequent to the prior
adjudication of neglect if “the trial court finds by clear and
convincing evidence a probability of repetition of neglect if the
juvenile were returned to the parent.” In re Pope, 144 N.C. App.
32, 37, 547 S.E.2d 153, 157, aff'd, 354 N.C. 359, 554 S.E.2d 644
(2001).
Here, the record shows the court stated in open court that
“neglect existed and continues to exist and the probably [sic] of
repetition is great.” By finding of fact number 19 in the
adjudicatory order, the court stated the following:
19. That based on the evidence presented the
court finds that the facts alleged in the
Motion are true by clear, cogent and
convincing evidence, and that these facts
constitute neglect. The evidence presented
also supports a strong likelihood that neglect
would continue if the children were returned
to the home of the parents at this time or any
time in the foreseeable future.
We conclude the foregoing is an adequate finding of “probability of
repetition of neglect” sufficient to support termination of
parental rights on the ground of neglect.
Respondent next contends that the court erred in concluding
respondent had willfully left the children in foster care and
failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions
that led to the removal of the children from her custody.
The court's findings of fact show that respondent has a
history of child protective services investigations from 1997,2000, 2001, and 2003. Since the children were removed from her
custody in August 2004 on the ground of neglect, respondent has
exhibited “chronic apathy and inaction. . . .” She “made minimal
steps to comply with her case plans dated October of 2004 and April
of 2005.” She missed several visits with the children. She failed
to attend a psychological evaluation concerning one of the
children. She has not completed a parenting class. She has
failed to maintain a stable long term residence, thereby continuing
a pattern of moving from residence to residence established before
the children were removed from her custody. Respondent has often
changed her telephone number thereby making it difficult for
petitioner to contact her. We conclude these findings support the
court's conclusion.
Respondent lastly contends that the court erred in concluding
that it is in the best interests of the children that her parental
rights be terminated. She argues the court failed to consider the
bond between respondent and the children.
“The trial court has discretion, if it finds that at least one
of the statutory grounds exists, to terminate parental rights upon
a finding that it would be in the child's best interests.” In re
Nesbitt, 147 N.C. App. 349, 352, 555 S.E.2d 659, 662 (2001). The
trial court's decision to terminate parental rights during the
dispositional stage is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.
Accordingly, the court's decision will not be disturbed unless it
“is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a
reasoned decision.” In re J.B., 172 N.C. App. 747, 751, 616 S.E.2d385, 387, aff'd, 360 N.C. 165, 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005).
We discern no abuse of discretion. “[T]he fact that the
parent loves or is concerned about his child will not necessarily
prevent the court from making a determination that the child is
neglected.” In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109, 316 S.E. 2d 246,
252 (1984). The court found in the dispositional order that an
adoptive family has been located which will accept all five
children and that the children are adjusting well to placement with
this family. The court further found that while respondent and the
children have a relationship, respondent and the children's father
“seriously neglected them while the children were living [with]
them, and the mother has often displayed apathy and indifference
about meeting goals necessary to reunify with the children. She
also has often been unable to attend to the emotional needs of all
of the children during visits she attended.” The court also noted
in the adjudicatory order that at the time the children were
removed from the home, they were “grossly behind on medical
checkups and immunizations.” The home was in “deplorable
condition, including old and decaying food, soiled diapers and
underwear, and feces and roaches on the floor. The stench in the
home was so severe that the children were ridiculed at school by
classmates and school personnel had to disinfect services [sic]
with which the children were in contact.”
The order is
Affirmed.
Judges McGEE and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***