In re R.J.C.M
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-358 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 September 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Randolph County Nos. 12 JT 33-36 R.J.C.M., R.J.M., T.M.M., and J.R.M., Jr. Appeal by respondent from orders entered 18 November 2013 and 20 December 2013 by Judge James P. Hill in Randolph County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2014. No brief for petitioner-appellee Randolph County Department of Social Services. Edward Eldred Attorney at Law, PLLC, by Edward Eldred, for respondent-appellant. Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Kari R. Johnson, for guardian ad litem. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. Respondent, the father of the juveniles R.J.C.M., R.J.M., T.M.M., and J.R.M., Jr., appeals from orders terminating his parental rights. After careful review, we affirm. Background -2On 13 February 2012, the Randolph County Department of Social Services ( DSS ) filed petitions alleging that R.J.C.M., R.J.M., T.M.M., and J.R.M., Jr. were neglected and dependent juveniles. DSS stated that respondent and the mother had engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the juveniles; the mother had left the juveniles alone in their home without proper supervision on multiple occasions; and respondent and the mother had cared for the juveniles while under the influence of illegal substances. Additionally, on 13 February 2012, the mother was admitted to the hospital due to suicidal ideations. While in the hospital, she tested positive for benzodiazepines, cocaine, marijuana, and methadone. to the hospital, the juveniles Upon the mother s admission were placed with relatives because respondent admitted to DSS that he could not care for the children. The relatives, however, were unable to care for the juveniles, and neither respondent nor the mother was able to provide alternative consideration. child care arrangements for DSS s The juveniles were taken into non-secure custody and were subsequently adjudicated neglected and dependent. On 29 January 2013, the trial court ceased reunification efforts. On 22 March 2013, respondent s parental rights. DSS filed motions to terminate On 18 November 2013, the trial -3court entered an adjudicatory order in which it determined that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) (2013) to terminate respondent s parental rights. The trial court further concluded that terminate the mother s parental rights. the trial court entered a grounds existed to On 20 December 2013, dispositional order in which it concluded that it was in the best interests of the juveniles that respondent s terminated. rights. and the mother s parental rights be The trial court therefore terminated their parental Respondent appeals. Discussion Respondent s counsel has filed a no-merit brief on respondent s behalf in which he states that he has conducted a conscientious and thorough review of the record and trial transcript and was unable to identify any issues of merit on which to base an argument for relief. Consequently, counsel conceded that he could not in good faith argue that the trial court erred in terminating respondent s parental rights. Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d), he requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. In accordance with Rule 3.1(d), counsel wrote respondent a letter on 28 April 2014 advising him of counsel s -4inability to find error, his filing of a no-merit brief, and of respondent s right to file his own arguments directly with this Court within thirty days of the date of the filing of the no-merit brief. Respondent has not filed his own written to Rule 3.1(d), arguments. In addition to seeking review pursuant counsel directs our attention to potential issues with regard to certain of the trial court s conclusions that grounds existed to terminate respondent s acknowledges that any parental one ground respondent s parental rights. rights. is However, sufficient to counsel terminate See In re Taylor, 97 N.C. App. 57, 64, 387 S.E.2d 230, 233-34 (1990) (noting that a finding of any one of the separately enumerated grounds is sufficient to support termination). Counsel concedes that he cannot in good faith argue that all three grounds found by the trial court to support termination of respondent s parental rights were erroneous. Conclusion After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable court s to find orders any possible terminating Accordingly, we affirm. prejudicial respondent s error in parental the trial rights. -5- AFFIRMED. Judges DILLON and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
