MATTERS OF v. << (2024)

Respondent-Father appeals from the trial court's 22 February 2023 order terminating his parental rights in V.W. Counsel for Father filed a no-merit brief under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Father did not exercise his opportunity to file a pro se brief in accordance with Rule 3.1(e).

Counsel filing a Rule 3.1(e) no-merit brief is required to “identify any issues in the record on appeal that arguably support the appeal and must state why those issues lack merit or would not alter the ultimate result.” N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e) (2023). Here, counsel fully complied with all of the requirements of Rule 3.1(e) and identified two issues for our independent review: (1) whether the trial court prejudicially erred when it found grounds to terminate Father's parental rights and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interest.

In accordance with In re L.E.M., we have conducted an independent review of the issues raised in the no-merit brief. In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019) (“We conclude that the text of Rule 3.1([e]) plainly contemplates appellate review of the issues contained in a no-merit brief.”). “[W]e are satisfied that the trial court's order terminating [Father]’s parental rights is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and is based on proper legal grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order terminating [Father]’s parental rights.” In re K.M.S., 380 N.C. 56, 59 (2022).

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of: Judges TYSON, MURPHY, and WOOD.