An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA13-1004
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 4 February 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
M.I.J., U.N.J., and X.R.J. Wake County
No. 11 JA 07-09
Appeal by mother and father from order entered 16 July 2012
by Judge Margaret P. Eagles and order entered 13 June 2013 by
Judge Monica M. Bousman in Wake County District Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 13 January 2014.
Office of the Wake County Attorney, by Deputy Wake County
Attorney Roger A. Askew, for petitioner-appellee Wake
County Human Services.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by R. Jason Herndon,
for the guardian ad litem.
Mary McCullers Reece for respondent-appellant mother.
Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by Edward Eldred, for
respondent-appellant father.
STEELMAN, Judge.
After independent review of the record in this matter, and
consideration of the no-merit briefs filed by counsel for both
-2-
mother and father (respondents), we conclude that there was no
prejudicial error and affirm the orders of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Wake County Human Services (WCHS) filed a juvenile petition
on 4 January 2011 alleging M.I.J., U.N.J., and X.R.J. (the
children) were neglected juveniles. WCHS took non-secure
custody of the children on the same date. By order entered 6
April 2011, the trial court adjudicated the juveniles neglected
and continued custody of the children with WCHS. In a
permanency planning order filed 16 July 2012, the trial court
found that returning the children to respondents would be
contrary to the children’s best interests. The trial court
ceased reunification efforts and ordered that the permanent plan
for the children be adoption. Respondents preserved their right
to appeal from this order.
On 26 October 2012, WCHS filed a petition to terminate
respondents’ parental rights, alleging as grounds: (1) neglect,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2011); (2) failure to make
reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the
removal of the juveniles, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2)
(2011); (3) failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of
care for the juveniles, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(3) (2011);
-3-
and (4) that the parental rights of the respondents with respect
to another child have been terminated and the parents lack the
ability or willingness to establish a safe home. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 7B-1111(a)(9) (2011). Following hearings on 14 February, 11
March, 12 April, and 24 April 2013, the trial court entered an
order on 13 June 2013 concluding that the first three grounds
existed to terminate respondents’ parental rights and that the
fourth ground existed only as to mother. The trial court
further determined that termination of respondents’ parental
rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1110 (2011) was in the
best interests of the juveniles. Respondents gave timely notice
of appeal.
II. “No-Merit” Briefs of Respondents
Counsel for both respondents have filed no-merit briefs
stating that after “a conscientious and thorough review of the
record on appeal” they are unable to find any issue “of merit on
which to base an argument for relief.” Pursuant to North
Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d), they request this
Court conduct an independent examination of the case. N.C. R.
App. P. 3.1(d) (2011). In accordance with Rule 3.1(d), counsel
wrote respondents letters advising respondents of counsel’s
inability to find error, of counsel’s request for this Court to
-4-
conduct an independent review of the record, and of each
respondent’s right to file his or her own arguments directly
with this Court while the appeal is pending. Counsel attached
to each letter a copy of the record, transcript, and no-merit
brief filed by counsel. Respondents have not filed their own
written arguments.
In addition to seeking review pursuant to Rule 3.1(d),
counsel direct our attention to potential issues with regard to
the trial court’s termination order. Counsel, however,
acknowledge that these issues would not alter the ultimate
result, as the trial court’s findings of fact support at least
one ground for termination, and the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that termination was in the best
interests of the children. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1110, -
1111.
After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are
unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial
court’s orders. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order
ceasing reunification efforts and the order terminating
respondents’ parental rights to M.I.J., U.N.J., and X.R.J.
AFFIRMED.
Judges BRYANT and HUNTER, ROBERT N., Jr. concur.
-5-
Report per Rule 30(e).