Background
This appeal involves three children—Josh (age three) and twins Prince and Paul (age two)—removed by Orange County DSS in November 2023 following a serious motor vehicle accident. Mother, driving around 1:00 a.m. with all three children in the car, crossed the center line and struck another vehicle head-on. Josh was wearing a seatbelt; Prince was unrestrained; and Paul was in Mother’s lap when the airbag deployed. Both Prince and Paul sustained traumatic brain injuries and skull fractures; Prince was also hypothermic and had tested positive for THC at the hospital. The children had missed wellness checks and the twins remained unvaccinated despite their prematurity.
Mother had an extensive CPS history. While living in Georgia in 2018, one of her children died from nonaccidental blunt-force injuries, resulting in a felony aggravated battery conviction and a twenty-year sentence (two years served, with probation). By the time of the TPR hearing, Mother had had her parental rights terminated as to seven children. Psychological and parenting-capacity evaluations in early 2024 diagnosed Mother with multiple personality disorders and borderline intellectual functioning (IQ of 71) and concluded she required “100% present, competent adult” supervision when with her children. Orange County DSS filed TPR petitions in August 2024. Following a bench trial in June 2025, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on grounds of neglect (all three children), prior involuntary TPR (all three), and dependency (twins).
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed both the June 2024 permanency planning order ceasing reunification efforts and the June 2025 TPR orders.
Permanency planning—affirmed. The trial court made the written findings required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) addressing Mother’s progress, participation, availability, and conduct inconsistent with the children’s health or safety. Mother challenged specific findings as unsupported by evidence, but the court found each was backed by competent record evidence—the psychological evaluation, the social worker’s testimony about inconsistent mood regulation and parenting, and Mother’s failure to engage with medication management. The court also rejected Mother’s argument that certain “ultimate findings” lacked support, holding that regardless of whether they were ultimate findings or conclusions of law, the trial court’s supported subsidiary findings undergirded them.
TPR on neglect—affirmed. The court needed to reach only the neglect ground. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1), termination based on neglect requires a showing that past neglect is likely to recur if the child is returned. The trial court’s unchallenged findings established: a prior child’s death from nonaccidental injuries; a motor vehicle accident causing serious injuries to unrestrained children; ongoing concerns about marijuana impairment; and a psychological evaluation concluding Mother cannot safely parent independently given her diagnoses and cognitive profile. The court held that even if some of the challenged findings were unsupported, the unchallenged findings alone supported the conclusion that neglect was likely to recur.
Key Takeaways
- Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d), a trial court ceasing reunification must make written findings on the four statutory factors; a psychological evaluation concluding the parent cannot safely parent independently, combined with a pattern of continued unsafe conduct during supervised visits, satisfies those factors.
- For TPR on neglect, a parent’s history of prior involuntary TPR adjudications, a prior child’s death from abuse, and a forensic evaluation predicting ongoing parenting incapacity are powerful predictors of future neglect that courts may credit to satisfy the likelihood-of-recurrence requirement.
- Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal; even if a parent successfully challenges some findings, the remaining unchallenged findings may independently support the TPR conclusion, making it essential to challenge every inadequately supported finding below.
Why It Matters
In re: J.E.S., P.K.S., P.E.S. illustrates how the full history of a parent’s involvement with child protective services, across jurisdictions and over many years, becomes relevant to the TPR analysis in North Carolina. The opinion underscores that a parent who has partially complied with a case plan—attending therapy, obtaining housing, completing classes—does not automatically avoid TPR if psychological evaluations and observed conduct during visitation demonstrate continued inability to provide safe, unsupervised parenting. For DSS attorneys and guardians ad litem, the case is a reminder to address all four § 7B-906.2(d) factors thoroughly in permanency planning orders so that any appellate challenge meets a complete evidentiary record.