In re: K.J.

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-1091
Filed 21 October 2026
Durham County, No. 20JA000115-310
IN THE MATTER OF: K.J.
Appeal by Respondent-Father from Order entered 7 August 2025 by Judge
Doretta Walker in Durham County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
27 August 2026.
Parent Defender Annick Lenoir-Peek, by Assistant Parent Defender Jacky
Brammer, for Respondent-Appellant-Father.
Joint Brief filed by Patrick A. Kuchyt, for Petitioner-Appellee Durham County
Department of Social Services; and K&L Gates, LLP, by Sophie M. Goodman,
for the Guardian ad Litem.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Respondent-Father (“Father”) appeals from a Permanency Planning Hearing
Order awarding guardianship of the minor child Kelly1 to her paternal grandmother.
For the following reasons, we affirm the Order.
I. Introduction
1 A pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the minor child.

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 2 -
Kelly was born to Respondent-Mother (“Mother”) on 2 October 2018. No father
is listed on her birth certificate. Alamance County Department of Social Services
(“Alamance DSS”) began an investigation after receiving a report on
9 November 2019 that Mother made a video of herself knocking Kelly to the ground,
and it began an investigation. Mother admitted to Alamance DSS that she made the
video to upset Mr. J, Kelly’s putative father, because he started dating her sister.
Alamance DSS established a safety plan wherein Kelly would reside in Durham with
her maternal grandmother (“Ms. G”) and transferred the matter to Durham County
Department of Social Services (“Durham DSS” or “DSS”).
On 25 August 2020, Durham DSS filed a petition alleging that Kelly was
neglected, listing Mother and Mr. J as her parents. Mr. J passed away in late 2020
without establishing paternity. The court adjudicated Kelly neglected on
20 October 2021.
On 15 December 2021, Father contacted Durham DSS claiming to be Kelly’s
father and seeking custody. However, he did not provide DSS any other information
about himself, such as his address, except that “he was more than capable of
providing for [Kelly] and made twice as much money as the social worker.” In its
Permanency Planning Review (“PPR”) Order filed 14 June 2022, the court found that
he is a truck driver living in Dallas, Texas, and that he only had sex with Mother
once, paying her for the meeting after meeting her online.
Father arranged an unverified DNA test and sent Ms. G a document which

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 3 -
convinced her that he was Kelly’s father, and she allowed him to visit Kelly four
times. After the fourth visit, Kelly reported to Ms. G that Father “pulled her gown
up and bit[] me on my butt.” Ms. G then contacted police and child protective services
and obtained a restraining order against Father. The court was nevertheless “very
disturbed” by Ms. G’s decision to allow the visits “[d]espite DSS recommendations
that [Father] not have visitation until he goes through the proper procedures” and
the court ordered that Father have no contact or visitation with Kelly. The court
found that he “had not visited with [Kelly] or provided monetary support.”
Father refused DSS requests for a DNA test four times between May and
August 2022. Father filed an affidavit admitting paternity on 1 September 2022 and
claimed, “I have been heavily involved from the very beginning [and] [Mother] has
never had to buy[ ] as much as one diaper or baby wipe or anything, as I provided
those things [m]ainly from eBay[.]” The same day, he sent Ms. G a text that he was
“coming to get [Kelly]” but did not follow through.
Complying with a court order, Father finally requested that Durham DSS
arrange a paternity test on 7 September 2022. He completed the test on
30 September 2022 and received the results on 11 October 2022. Three days later,
he hid behind the stairs of Ms. G’s apartment and grabbed Kelly, attempting to take
her. Ms. G obtained another restraining order and attempted to press charges for
assault and kidnapping. Father signed a complaint for custody and visitation on
15 October 2022 and filed it four days later. On 5 January 2023, the court again

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 4 -
ordered that he have no contact or visitation with Kelly. The court found that since
the October encounter with Father, Kelly was “exhibiting a lot of anxiety and fear,
especially about leaving the home.” The Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) later reported
that Kelly was “afraid to sleep by herself since the incident” and had “become afraid
of pick-up trucks that look similar to the truck in which [Father] placed her.”
DSS reported on 9 May 2023 that Father had not engaged in services and “has
declined to do so.” DSS reported on 2 August 2023 that he “declined to maintain
ongoing contact with the Agency[,]” that it made unsuccessful attempts to contact
him, and that his “whereabouts are unknown.” DSS continued to attempt contact
throughout the summer and fall of 2023 but received reports from the other parties
that “he is not going to participate in any services that he feels are not necessary.”
The GAL reported that Kelly “continues to be fearful that her father will
return” and “looks out the window continuously and points out any cars she does not
recognize from the neighborhood.” The GAL reached Father and reported that he
“would like to obtain full custody” but “was unable to provide a plan of care when
prompted about where [Kelly] would stay and who would watch her if she were to live
with him[,]” he was not willing “to take any classes or complete any examinations,”
and he suggested that he would homeschool Kelly. He also told the GAL “he should
be exempted from classes, examinations, and work and income verification because
he has a degree in psychology and because he can be seen in his truck during virtual
court hearings.”

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 5 -
Following PPR hearings in August and December 2023, the court found that
Kelly’s placement with Ms. G was “not meeting the child’s needs” because Ms. G “has
been isolating the child due to her own fears” and “has not been taking advantage of
resources for the juvenile or providing her with socialization.” She was not in daycare
or preschool and was missing developmental milestones, and the court found that her
telehealth therapy had not properly addressed the October 2022 incident or other
concerns. The court found that Father “continues to minimize the [e]ffect his actions
in October of 2022 had on [Kelly] and does not see how it traumatized her.” The court
ordered that Father undergo a mental health evaluation, engage in parenting classes,
and show that he maintained employment and housing.
The court “was disturbed by the testimony of Ms. G and would move [Kelly]
immediately, if she felt it would not cause more harm than to abruptly move [her.]”
The court found that Kelly’s paternal grandmother (“Ms. N”) was suitable and willing
to take placement and ordered that visitation begin immediately before transitioning
to placement with her if the visits go well.
Kelly moved in with Ms. N in Rocky Mount on 23 February 2024 and began
attending daycare. Ms. N told the GAL that she would not allow Father to visit Kelly
unless visitation was granted, and she reported that Father became very angry that
she did not disclose which daycare Kelly attended but that she was “able to hold the
boundary” with him. Father continued to tell the GAL that he would not complete
any parenting classes, and the GAL reported that he violated the court’s prohibition

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 6 -
on giving Kelly gifts. DSS reported that he “contacted [Ms. N’s] employment and
made threatening statements to her coworkers.”
Following the 8 July 2024 PPR hearing, the court found that Kelly was
“adjusting well to the new placement” and attending therapy, and that Father “has
not engaged in any services since the last hearing” and was “not contacting DSS or
the social worker.” It found that he expressly refused to comply with ordered services,
that “[h]e is acting in a manner inconsistent with the juvenile’s health and safety[,]
and that “[r]eunification efforts with [Father] would be unsuccessful and inconsistent
with the juvenile’s health and safety.” The court permitted him to make a video for
Kelly that may be shown to her in therapy if deemed appropriate, but it otherwise
ordered him not to contact her care providers and to attend intensive anger
management classes.
Following the 4 December 2024 PPR hearing, the court found the placement
continued to go well, that she had successful virtual visits with Father since
October 2024, that Father was maintaining contact with the social worker, and that
he had completed parenting classes and a mental health assessment. The court
ordered in-person visitation and gave Father “another review period to complete
services and come up with an appropriate care plan[.]”
At the PPR hearing on 5 May 2025, DSS argued that permanent placement
with Ms. N was in Kelly’s best interest. At the time of the hearing, Mother was living
at Horizons, a substance rehabilitation facility in Chapel Hill, and was facing pending

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 7 -
criminal charges in Wake, Alamance, and Orange Counties. Ms. N testified that
Father’s visits were irregular but going well. Social worker Lacaecia Smith testified
that Kelly’s relationship with Ms. N was “awesome[,]” that she was doing well in
school, and that her mental health needs were met. However, she testified that
Father had refused to provide her his address, and though she did not object to
unsupervised visitation, the Department was not in favor of granting him custody
because it was unable to do a home assessment without knowing his address.
Throughout the hearing, Father repeatedly interrupted and lodged objections
although he was represented by an attorney and warned by the court. In his
testimony, he opposed DSS’s request to grant Ms. N guardianship and requested legal
custody of Kelly. Asked about his care plan, he said that although he travels for work,
he didn’t see a need for daycare, and that she could attend online school from his
truck. He testified that he owned a mobile home in Dallas but when asked how often
Kelly would sleep at the home, he repeatedly refused to answer the question, tried to
plead the Fifth, and had to be ordered to answer, “On average three nights[.]” In
closing, DSS argued that Father was not in substantial compliance with court orders
and had only provided “at most a concept of a plan,” and was therefore “acting in a
manner that is inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as a parent.”
Mother and the GAL joined DSS’s recommendations to grant guardianship to Ms. N
with visitation to Father and to close the case.
In closing, Judge Walker stated, “This case has been interesting. Both parents

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 8 -
seem to be getting [themselves] together. But these parents have acted inconsistent
with their parental rights.” She stated that she had been taking diligent notes
throughout the hearing, noting that Father was “impulsive. . .erratic, volatile,
arbitrary” and hadn’t “take[n] advantage” of the ordered services, concluding: “His
plan is not in this child’s best interest. His plan has many holes in it. His plan
provides no stability for this child. His plan was inappropriate. . . . I have some
serious concerns.”
In its Order, the court found that Father failed to substantiate his claim that
he was receiving mental health treatment, leaving the court with “no indication of
[his] treatment goals or that the treatment provider has seen any of this Court’s
orders. . . . Father is not demonstrating that he has learned from his mental
treatment.” The court found that he had spoken with Kelly approximately weekly
and visited in person approximately monthly, but that they had “never spent more
than twenty-four consecutive hours together in her lifetime.” Because he had not
provided his home address prior to the hearing or any relevant document and initially
gave an incorrect address in his testimony, he had “prevented the parties and this
Court from being able to verify his residence and assess the safety and suitability of
the home.” Further, during the review period, he provided a false address to the
social worker, and when she tried for clarification, he “stated that he would be asking
for a continuation of the Permanency Planning Hearing until about September and
at this time he would be prepared to give his address.”

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 9 -
In its findings, the court outlined Father’s care plan as explained at trial,
noting that he “was evasive and combative during his testimony[,]” “ha[s] not looked
into daycare or alternative plans for care if that is needed” and “did not have a plan
if the juvenile did not want to go with him[,]” and “has not spoken with the juvenile’s
therapist about her mental health needs and was dismissive of her continuation in
therapy.” In addition, the court found that by not cooperating with the GAL, the
court, or DSS, he was acting in a manner inconsistent with [Kelly’s] health and
safety[.]” The court concluded that it was in Kelly’s best interests to grant Ms. N full
custody and guardianship and that both Father and Mother acted “in a manner
inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status as parents,” and waived
future review due to Kelly’s stable placement. The court ordered unsupervised
visitation for Father within Nash County. Father appealed.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Appellate review of a permanency planning order is “limited to whether there
is competent evidence in the record to support the findings and whether the findings
support the conclusions of law.” In re J.H., 244 N.C. App. 255, 268 (2015). The trial
court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if unchallenged, Adams v. Tessener,
354 N.C. 57, 65–66 (2001), or if supported by competent evidence in the record, see In
re L.R.L.B., 377 N.C. 311, 315 (2021).
B. Relevant Law

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 10 -
We review de novo the conclusion that a parent is acting in a manner
inconsistent with their constitutionally protected status and determine whether the
conclusion is “supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re B.R.W., 381 N.C.
61, 76 (2022). “The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that should fully
convince. This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence
standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard applied in criminal matters.” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715,
721 (2009) (cleaned up) (quotes omitted).
The interest at issue in this case is Father’s “liberty interest in the
companionship, custody, care, and control” of his biological daughter, as protected by
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Price v. Howard, 346 N.C.
68, 74, (1997). Because this is a “paramount constitutional right[,]” the government
may interfere with this custody and control “only upon a showing that the parent is
unfit to have custody” or “where the parent’s conduct is inconsistent with his or her
constitutionally protected rights.” Adams, 354 N.C. at 62 (2001) (citing Price, 346
N.C. at 84 (1997).
There is no “bright line” test on the latter question, but in our fact-specific
analysis we “must consider both the legal parent’s conduct and his or her intentions
vis-à-vis the child.” In re A.W., 280 N.C. App. 162, 174 (2021). “Unfitness, neglect,
and abandonment clearly constitute conduct inconsistent with the protected status
parents may enjoy,” but “[o]ther types of conduct, which must be viewed on a case-

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 11 -
by-case basis, can rise to this level so as to be inconsistent with the protected status
of natural parents.” In re B.R.W., 381 N.C. at 77.
When examining a legal parent’s conduct to determine
whether it is inconsistent with his or her constitutionally-
protected status, the focus is not on whether the conduct
consists of “good acts” or “bad acts.” Rather, the gravamen
of “inconsistent acts” is the volitional acts of the legal
parent that relinquish otherwise exclusive parental
authority to a third party.
Mason v. Dwinnell, 190 N.C. App. 209, 228 (2008). “[E]vidence of a parent’s conduct
should be viewed cumulatively.” Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142, 147 (2003).
Finally, the volitional conduct sufficient for a court to conclude that a parent
acted inconsistently with his constitutional parental rights meets a lesser standard
than necessary for the court to conclude that those rights should be terminated:
“[C]onduct inconsistent with the parent’s protected status . . . need not rise to the
statutory level warranting termination of parental rights.” Price, 346 N.C. at 79. For
example, failing to complete ordered services can support the termination of parental
rights as this is indicative of future neglect. In re R.L.R., 381 N.C. 863, 869 (2022)
(citation omitted).
C. Sufficient Findings Supported the Court’s Conclusion that Father’s Conduct
was Inconsistent with his Parental Rights
Father challenges the court’s factual findings #5, #38, #39, #42, #43, and #44,
and the remaining findings of fact are binding. As an initial matter, finding of fact
#5 merely states that the Court re-adopts findings from previous Orders in this case,

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 12 -
from which Father did not appeal, so these earlier findings remain binding here as
well. The court can take judicial notice of prior orders’ factual findings, even when
they are based on a lower evidentiary standard, because “where a judge sits without
a jury, the trial court is presumed to have disregarded any incompetent evidence and
relied upon the competent evidence.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 410 (2019) (citing
Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell, 301 N.C. 689, 694 (1981)).
Finding #38 states: “The Respondent Father is not cooperating with [DSS, the
GAL], or this Court.” There was ample evidentiary support for this finding: He failed
to make himself available in response to DSS’s communications and expressed
objections to the court’s ordered services when the GAL discussed his progress with
him. Accordingly, this finding is binding on appeal. Findings #42 and #43 are also
binding, because there was evidence that Father failed to either “consistently
communicat[e] with DSS or the GAL[,]” “adequately compl[y] with the court ordered
services[,]” or “provide a safe home[,]” and that it would be contrary to Kelly’s “health
and safety” if she were released to his home. Father failed to provide DSS or the GAL
with a verified home address, preventing the court from verifying that his home was
safe, and he never produced records showing engagement with recommended mental
health treatments. Likewise, Finding #44 is binding, as the record and transcript
clearly show that Father had “additional time to complete services and come up with
a care plan for the juvenile, but he did not use this time to meet these requirements”
before the hearing. Father was provided fifteen months to complete all his ordered

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 13 -
services, and the court even continued the case in order to give him an extra
opportunity to come into full compliance, but he failed to do so.
“If the objective reasonable person, examining the totality of the
circumstances, would understand how the trial court’s written findings lead to its
conclusion . . . those findings are sufficient.” In re L.C., 387 N.C. 475, 481 (2025). It
is proper to evaluate the “reasonableness of any progress that the parent has made
in light of the amount of time that the parent had been given to make that progress.”
In re D.A.A.R., 377 N.C. 258, 275 (2021). More than forty months elapsed between
Father’s first contact with DSS and the appealed Order, which the court filed more
than two years after its first Order that he engage in services. However, for every
positive step that Father took to comply with the court and behave in accordance with
his constitutional parental rights, he took two steps in the opposite direction.
Father first contacted DSS in December 2021 but expressly declined to become
a party to the case and would not take a court-ordered paternity test until nine
months later. Soon after filing his affidavit admitting paternity and thereby
becoming a party to the case as Kelly’s putative father, he “attempted to take [Kelly]
from the maternal grandmother by grabbing her” after hiding outside their
apartment. This decision brought about foreseeable trouble for Kelly: She began
exhibiting “a lot of anxiety and fear, especially about leaving the home” and Ms. G
became afraid to enroll the child in school or daycare outside the home, diminishing
her progress and development.

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 14 -
In April 2023, the court ordered Father to complete a mental health
evaluation, participate in subsequent mental health recommendations, take
parenting classes, and prove he had housing and employment, but in August 2024,
the court found that even though it had been fifteen months, he had “not engaged in
any services since the last hearing” and ordered him to take “intensive anger
management classes.” During that time, Kelly settled in with Ms. N and the court
found that she was adjusting and catching up developmentally as a result.
In January 2025, the court acknowledged that Father made progress: after
long refusing to even communicate with DSS and expressly disputing the necessity
of the ordered services, he took important steps to comply by proving employment
and completing a parenting class. As a result, the court was exceedingly generous in
giving him additional time to comply fully and “come up with an appropriate care
plan” for Kelly. In the meantime, Kelly’s placement was “going well[,]” and she was
“meeting all educational expectations.”
When Father had the opportunity to present in court an “appropriate care
plan” more likely to be in Kelly’s best interests than the ongoing placement with Ms.
N, he proposed the following. Although he had not spent more than 24 continuous
hours with Kelly in her life, he asked to assume full custody within a week and re-
locate with her to Texas, where he claimed to rent a property that the court was
unable to verify. Kelly would thereafter reside at home in Texas about half the time
and otherwise sleep in Father’s truck. She would stop attending school in person and

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 15 -
commence an online education, but Father had not yet identified any such service
nor explained how she would continue to engage in age-appropriate social activities
on the road. He had never spoken with Kelly’s therapist, let alone any pediatricians
or other health providers in the Dallas area. Moreover, he offered no alternative
should this “plan” not work out. In addition, he failed to produce any records
confirming his own ongoing mental health care and was “not demonstrating that he
has learned from his mental treatment” and the court made no findings that he had
even begun the required “intensive” anger management course.
After Father’s initial conduct, the court was forbearing and patient with him,
granting him ample time and opportunity to show an understanding of Kelly’s needs
and the desire to meet them. However, Father remained recalcitrant as to the
required services, and his care plan demonstrated an ongoing failure to appreciate
the responsibilities of parenthood. Having taken this case’s facts in their totality and
reflected upon the seriousness of this result, we must agree that sufficient findings
supported the court’s conclusion that Father’s volitional conduct was inconsistent
with his parental rights. Therefore, we reject Father’s arguments that the findings
do not support this conclusion and that he therefore remains entitled to custody of
Kelly.
D. The Court Did Not Improperly Consider Socioeconomic Status
Father next argues that the court’s findings as to his housing and childcare
plan were insufficient, because a parent’s socioeconomic status is irrelevant to such

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 16 -
determinations. However, courts must verify the adequacy of a parent’s housing to
assess whether he can provide a safe environment for the child, and our Courts have
upheld the termination of parental rights where parents were unable to identify
adequate housing. In re J.J.H., 376 N.C. 161, 171 (2020).
DSS could not verify Father’s housing because, after giving them a false
commercial address, he expressly declined to tell them where he lived in Texas and
did not give a residential address until the final hearing, although he was fully
employed and making financial contributions to Kelly’s care, and he had over a year
to be transparent about his housing status. Accordingly, the court did not
inappropriately consider his socioeconomic status in its determination. The court
acknowledged his refusal to cooperate in any assessment or verification of his housing
following its order to obtain such housing.
E. Father Fails to Show that the Court Relied on Incompetent Evidence
Father next argues that the court relied on incompetent evidence and improper
findings made before he was a party to the action. Indeed, the court’s first findings
about Father occurred before he was officially a party to the action, to the effect that,
first, he informed DSS he wanted to take custody of Kelly but refused to do so “until
the CPS case was closed,” that he then inserted himself into Kelly’s life in the
meantime on the basis of an unverified DNA test, and that Ms. G received a
restraining order against him after Kelly claimed he bit her on the butt. Father did
not become a party to the case until, at the earliest, 1 September 2022, after he filed

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 17 -
his affidavit, which constituted “an admission of paternity and ha[d] the same legal
effect as a judgment of paternity for the purpose of establishing [his] legal duty to
support” Kelly.
Accordingly, any finding reached after this date was binding if supported by
clear and convincing evidence, and it would have been improper to give any weight
to earlier findings. But we assume that the court disregarded incompetent evidence
when incorporating these findings. See In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. at 410. Even if the
court considered none of the earlier findings, overwhelming evidence remained to
support the conclusion. Therefore, without more, Father cannot make the required
showing that the court improperly relied upon incompetent evidence in reaching its
conclusion.
The record is clear that the court declined to reach its conclusion until after
Father had additional time to come into compliance and develop a case plan. The
“objective reasonable person, examining the totality of the circumstances, would
understand that the trial court’s written findings” were based, as required, upon
then-existing circumstances, properly considered in the context of Father’s
cumulative conduct. In re L.C., 387 N.C. at 481, see also Owenby 357 N.C. at 147.
The court had to take judicial notice of its previous findings before reaching
conclusions as to his conduct, because its task was to evaluate the reasonableness of
his progress “in light of the amount of time that [he] had been given to make that
progress.” In re D.A.A.R., 377 N.C. at 275. When the clock started ticking, Father

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 18 -
had more than enough time, but he idled as the months passed, permitting Kelly to
remain with a third-party non-parent. During this window of time, Father gave the
court an adequate accumulation of relevant findings to reach its conclusion. After
all, this window included the incident of October 2022 and a fifteen-month period in
which Father made no progress whatsoever, and it culminated in the hearing where
Father failed to establish a realistic or reasonable care plan for his daughter.
Finally, Father contends that the court “abused its discretion when it limited
[his] visitations” and he is therefore entitled to no restrictions on visitation. However,
he fails to argue any supporting reasoning for this argument, and as such we decline
to consider the merits. See N.C. R. App. P. 28.
F. Best Interests Determination
Determinations of a child’s best interests are within the sound discretion of the
trial court and we review them only for an abuse of discretion. In re J.A.P., 189 N.C.
App. 683, 693 (2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is
“manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the
result of a reasoned decision.” In re Z.L.W., 372 N.C. 432, 435 (2019). North Carolina
has long recognized that a parent’s right to legal custody yields to the interests of the
child where he has
voluntarily permitted the child to remain continuously in
the custody of others in their home, and has taken little
interest in it, thereby substituting such others in his own
place, so that they stand in loco parentis to the child, and
continuing this condition of affairs for so long a time that

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 19 -
the love and affection of the child and the foster parents
have become mutually engaged, to the extent that a
severance of this relationship would tear the heart of the
child, and mar his happiness.
In re Gibbons, 246 N.C. 273, 280 (1957).
In the present case, despite his haphazard and irregular gestures at
compliance with the court’s orders, Father retained the opportunity to show that he
had the wherewithal to meet Kelly’s needs and establish that custody with him was
in her best interests, although she was succeeding in the stable placement with Ms.
N. “[H]aving permitted all this to happen he claims the right, because he is the
father, to sever the ties which bind this child to [Ms. N]. In this instance the welfare
of the child is paramount. The dictates of humanity must prevail over the whims and
caprice of a parent.” Id. at 280–81 (quoting Merchant v. Bussell, 139 Me. 118, 124
(1942)). By comparison, the testimony at trial and the court’s findings showed that
Kelly was healthy and continuing to thrive with Ms. N. Despite the late start in her
education, she was “making good grades” in school, and living in North Carolina
allowed her to have biweekly visits with Mother and Ms. G and regular overnight
visits with her younger biological sister.
Father has not shown that the court’s ultimate decision was manifestly
unsupported by reason. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the court abused its
discretion in reaching the conclusion that Ms. N’s guardianship was in the best
interests of the child.

IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
- 20 -
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s Order.
AFFIRMED.
Judges FLOOD and GORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).