{
  "id": 4103481,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF K.O.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re of K.O.",
  "decision_date": "2012-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-722",
  "first_page": "420",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 N.C. App. 420"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "625 S.E.2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635064,
        12635065,
        12635063
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/625/0779-02",
        "/se2d/625/0779-03",
        "/se2d/625/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "618 S.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633847
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/618/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3797279
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8352791
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "8"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/173/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 6373,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13134607461670544
    },
    "sha256": "0378cc3329fbab3fe733c30828b9cb266c80e5e986ee3a13c53d26149632e082",
    "simhash": "1:93c81866b68f46f0",
    "word_count": 986
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:08:05.693184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEELMAN and STROUD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF K.O."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nMother (respondent) appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor child, K.O. (the juvenile). We affirm.\nI. Background\nIn August 2008, L.A. W. (petitioner) an acquaintance of the respondent initiated a custody action against respondent seeking legal and physical custody of the juvenile. By order entered 16 April 2009, the trial court awarded permanent legal and physical custody of the juvenile to petitioner. The trial court found respondent had abandoned the juvenile to petitioner\u2019s exclusive care and control, and had failed to follow through with a drug treatment program.\nOn 2 September 2011, petitioner filed a petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights to the juvenile on the ground that the juvenile was a dependent juvenile (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(6)) due to respondent\u2019s continued drug abuse problems. Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition on 1 November 2011, seeking to add the ground that respondent\u2019s parental rights to another child had been terminated pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(9). The trial court allowed the motion to amend by order entered 28 December 2011.\nAfter a hearing on 22 February 2012, the trial court entered a judgment terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights on 14 March 2012. In its judgment, the trial court deemed the petition amended to add the ground of abandonment (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(7)) to conform with the evidence presented at the hearing. The trial court concluded grounds existed to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights to the juvenile based on the grounds alleged in the petition, and the newly added ground of abandonment. Respondent now appeals.\nII. Dependent Juvenile\nRespondent argues that the trial court erred in concluding the existence of the ground of dependency under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(6) because respondent had placed the juvenile in an alternative childcare arrangement. We disagree.\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(6), a trial court may terminate parental rights where it finds:\nThat the parent is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile, such that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B-101, and that there is a reasonable probability that such incapability will continue for the foreseeable future. Incapability under this subdivision may be the result of substance abuse, mental retardation, mental illness, organic brain syndrome, or any other cause or condition that renders the parent unable or unavailable to parent the juvenile and the parent lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(6) (2011). Respondent does not contest the trial court\u2019s conclusion that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile due to respondent\u2019s pattern of substance abuse and failure to provide proper care, supervision and a safe home for the juvenile. Respondent only challenges the trial court\u2019s conclusion that she lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement. Respondent contends that her alternative child care arrangement is custody of the juvenile with petitioner, and, thus, for petitioner to show she lacked an alternative child care arrangement, petitioner would have to prove respondent no longer desired the juvenile to live with petitioner, which petitioner has not done.\nWe are not persuaded by respondent\u2019s argument. Petitioner does not have custody of the juvenile at respondent\u2019s request. Rather, petitioner commenced a private custody action against respondent and was awarded custody of the juvenile due to respondent\u2019s substance abuse problems and abandonment of the juvenile in petitioner\u2019s care. Respondent has no ability to unilaterally decide that she no longer wants petitioner to have custody of the juvenile, and petitioner cannot be deemed to be respondent\u2019s alternative child care arrangement for the juvenile. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds exist to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights to the juvenile under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(6).\nRespondent does not contest the trial court\u2019s conclusion that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the juvenile. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights to the juvenile, and we need not address respondent\u2019s arguments regarding the court\u2019s amendment of the petition and conclusions that grounds also existed to terminate her parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B 1111(a)(7) and (9). See In re P.L.P., 173 N.C. App. 1, 8, 618 S.E.2d 241, 246 (2005) (\u201c[W]here the trial court finds multiple grounds on which to base a termination of parental rights, and an appellate court determines there is at least one ground to support a conclusion that parental rights should be terminated, it is unnecessary to address the remaining grounds.\u201d (citation and quotations omitted)), aff\u2019d per curiam, 360 N.C. 360, 625 S.E.2d 779 (2006).\nIII. Conclusion\nAccordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights to her juvenile K.O.\nAffirmed.\nJudges STEELMAN and STROUD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ELMORE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shapack & Shapack, P.A., by Edward S. Shapack, and Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, PA, by Elizabeth Johnstone James, for petitioner-appellee.",
      "Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant mother."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF K.O.\nNo. COA12-722\n(Filed 20 November 2012)\nTermination of Parental Rights \u2014 drug abuse \u2014 alternative child care arrangements \u2014 private custody action\nThe trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights to the juvenile under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-llll(a)(6) (respondent\u2019s drug abuse with the lack of an alternative care arrangement). Although respondent argued that she had placed the juvenile with petitioner in an alternative childcare arrangement, petitioner had commenced a private custody action against respondent and was awarded custody of the juvenile. Respondent had no ability to unilaterally decide that she no longer wanted petitioner to have custody of the juvenile, and petitioner could be deemed to be respondent\u2019s alternative child care arrangement for the juvenile.\nAppeal by respondent-mother from judgment entered 14 March 2012 by Judge Elizabeth T. Trosch in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 October 2012.\nShapack & Shapack, P.A., by Edward S. Shapack, and Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, PA, by Elizabeth Johnstone James, for petitioner-appellee.\nRichard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant mother."
  },
  "file_name": "0420-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 432
}