An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA25-364 Filed 17 September 2025 Yancey County, No. 23JT000024-990, 23JT000025-990 IN THE MATTER OF: J.C.R.R. and G.L.R., Minor Juveniles

Appeal by respondent-father from orders entered 23 January 2025 by Judge Rebecca Eggers-Gryder in Yancey County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 August 2025.

Sydney Batch for respondent-appellant father.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel F.E. Smith, for Guardian ad Litem.

No brief for petitioner-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent-appellants (“Father”) appeals from the termination of parental rights (“TPR”) order. Father’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief under Rule 3.1(e) of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under Rule 3.1(e), counsel filing a no-merit brief IN RE: J.C.R.R. AND G.L.R. Opinion of the Court

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 for Father has e fully complied with all the requirements of Rule 3.1(e) and identified two issues for our independent review: (1) whether the trial court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights based neglect and a likelihood of future neglect by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding it was in the children’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights. This Court conducts an independent review of the issues raised in the no-merit brief. In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). “[T]he text of Rule 3.1([e]) plainly contemplates appellate review of the issues contained in a no- merit brief.” Id. We have reviewed the issues raised by Father’s counsel and “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.” In re K.M.S., 380 N.C. 56, 59 (2022). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

Panel consisting of Chief Judge DILLON and Judges ARROWOOD and GRIFFIN.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-2-