Held:

Affirmed

Facts: DSS filed a neglect and dependency petition based on continued instances of domestic violence at the home in violation of a temporary safety agreement signed by Mother and Father. The child was adjudicated dependent and placed in DSS custody but physically remained in the home with the parents on a split schedule. DSS later terminated Mother’s unsupervised visits and placed the child with a foster parent. Mother’s case plan addressed parenting, substance use, domestic violence, employment, and housing concerns. During permanency planning, findings showed that incidents of domestic violence continued between Mother and Father, Mother denied substance use issues during her mental health assessment, and Mother failed to comply with requests for drug screens and tested positive at numerous drug screens. DSS filed a motion to TPR. Mother’s rights were terminated on the grounds of willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than 12 months without making reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child’s removal; neglect; failure to pay the cost of care; and failure to provide proper care and supervision. Mother appealed, challenging both the adjudication and disposition. This summary addresses the court’s adjudication of the ground in G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Appellate courts review a TPR adjudication order to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2) allows a court to terminate a parent’s rights when clear, cogent, and convincing evidence show the parent (1) willfully left the child in foster care or placement outside of the home for over 12 months, and (2) the parent has not made reasonable progress under the circumstances to correct the conditions which led to the removal of the child. “Voluntarily leaving a child in foster care for more than 12 months or a failure to be responsive to the efforts of DSS are sufficient grounds to find willfulness.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). “[A] parent’s prolonged inability to improve his or her situation, despite some efforts and good intentions, will support a conclusion of lack of reasonable progress.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). Compliance with a judicially-adopted case plan is relevant so long as the case plan addresses issues that contributed to the child’s removal.
“[T]he trial judge . . . has the authority to order a parent to take any step reasonably required to alleviate any condition that directly or indirectly contributed to causing the juvenile’s removal from the parental home.” Sl. Op. at 10, citing In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372, 381 (2019). Here, the trial court did not overreach its authority by addressing Mother’s substance use in her case plan. The child was adjudicated dependent based on instances of domestic violence and remained placed in the home with both parents on a split schedule. Investigations of subsequent domestic violence incidents revealed the parents’ substance use. Both parents signed a temporary safety plan that included agreeing to have a sober caregiver if they use. At a home visit, the social worker suspected Mother’s boyfriend of being impaired and alone with the children while Mother was at work. After Mother refused requested drug screens then tested positive once completing a drug screen, the child was removed and placed with a foster parent. The court concluded that the child was removed from the home based on incidents of domestic violence and substance use concerns. Components addressing substance use were therefore within the court’s authority.
Findings support the conclusion Mother failed to make reasonable progress in addressing the conditions that led to removal. Testimony of the social worker and the domestic violence class instructor, along with the DSS and GAL court reports, support the court’s findings that Mother consistently failed to comply with drug screenings or engage in substance use services; had numerous positive drug screens during the life of the case; although completed domestic violence classes, had not benefitted from the classes or applied them to her life as domestic violence incidents continued; had not completed a mental health assessment or engaged in therapy as ordered; and had not completed parenting classes.