In re K.B.C., ___ N.C. App. ___ (September 17, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Father appeals a TPR order to his three children, all of whom had been adjudicated neglected due to lack of proper care and supervision. The children were placed in DSS custody after staying in two different temporary safety placements that had been identified by Father but who were unwilling to care long term for the children. During the case, Father was arrested and sentenced as a habitual felon, with a release date in 2032. During his incarceration, Father proposed two other possible alternative placements for the three children. One proposed caretaker was not approved by DSS, and the other could not be located. DSS filed TPR petitions as to all three children. The court found grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights based on dependency and Father’s prior TPR and inability to establish a safe home. Father appeals arguing the court based the adjudication solely on Father’s incarceration.
- A court reviews the adjudication of termination grounds to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the court’s conclusion of law.
- G.S. 7B-1111(a)(6) allows for a court to terminate a parent’s rights upon finding a parent is incapable of providing proper care and supervision such that the child is dependent under G.S. 7B-101(9) and the incapability is likely to last for the foreseeable future. The incapability may result from substance use, mental illness, or other condition that renders the parent unable to parent the juvenile. The ground of dependency “must address both (1) the parent’s ability to provide care or supervision, and (2) the availability to the parent of alternative child care arrangements.” Sl. Op. at 12 (citation omitted). Appellate courts have “found extended periods of incarceration can render a parent incapable of providing sufficient care and supervision to a minor child.” Sl. Op. at 16.
- The findings support the conclusion that Father’s rights were subject to termination based on dependency. Incarceration alone is not a sword or shield in a TPR. Here, the findings show that the court considered more than Father’s incarceration; the court considered the substantial length of Father’s sentence, its effect on the children, the children’s physical and emotional well-being, and Father’s lack of alternative child care placements. The trial court noted that during this extensive period of incarceration, Father would not be able to provide and care for the children or have a personal relationship with the children that are integral to their well-being, which the court of appeals stated is consistent with appellate precedent (citing In re A.L.S., 375 N.C. 708 (2020), e.g. In re L.R.S., 237 N.C. App. 16 (2014)). The record shows that the children had been placed with two caretakers who were unwilling to provide long-term care, and Father’s more recent proposed placements were unable to be approved or located by DSS. Therefore, Father lacked an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Dependency