 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re J.B.10/4/2005
App. 365, 368, 256 S.E.2d 532, 534 (1979)). The children's father testified that he and respondent used crack cocaine on 12 January 2004. He admitted that he consumed five beers before coming to court, but he testified that he was not drunk. The children's father also conceded that he might have misstated the date on which he and respondent consumed the crack cocaine. The children's father did not, however, repudiate his testimony that he and respondent consumed crack cocaine within several weeks before the termination of parental rights hearing. Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support this finding of fact, this argument fails.
Finally, respondent challenges findings of fact sixteen andtwenty-one. These findings should properly be labeled conclusions of law, and we will treat them as such. Carpenter v. Brooks, 139 N.C. App. 745, 752, 534 S.E.2d 641, 646 (2000). In finding sixteen, the trial court determined that respondent neglected the children and had not adequately addressed her substance abuse problems. In finding twenty-one, the trial court further determined that the parental rights of respondent and the children's father should be terminated and that it was in the best interests of the children that the parental rights of respondent and the children's father be terminated.
The trial court's findings of fact clearly support these conclusions. Prior to the adjudication of neglect in March 2003, respondent had neglected the children by leaving them either completely unsupervised or inappropriately supervised with a convicted felon. While the children were in her care, respondent was often impaired by her substance abuse and was unable to assist the children with daily tasks. After the adjudication of neglect, respondent failed to comply with the services agreement she entered with DSS. She never completed the inpatient treatment ordered by the trial court as a prerequisite to visitation with the children, nor did she seek treatment for her drug problem. Finally, respondent smoked crack cocaine with the children's father two or three weeks before the termination of parental rights proceeding.
The challenged findings of fact contained in the order to terminate parental rights are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The mislabeled conclusions of law aresupported by the findings of fact. Accordingly, we overrule respondent's assignments of error on this issue.
Affirmed.
Judges HUNTER and LEVINSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|