¶ 1 This case is before us on remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court. A full summary of the underlying facts is available in our previous opinion in this matter. We affirmed the trial courts order terminating Fathers parental rights on dependency grounds, supported by the trial courts findings (1) that Fathers incarceration rendered him unavailable to support his child and (2) that it was reasonably probable that his unavailability would continue for the foreseeable future.
1
In re: K.A.S., 2022-NCCOA-464, ¶ 31 (unpublished).
¶ 2 Father petitioned the Supreme Court for discretionary review of our decision. The Supreme Court allowed Fathers petition for the limited purpose of remanding to this Court to reconsider our decision in light of its opinion in In re: G.B., 377 N.C. 106, 2021-NCSC-34. The Supreme Courts order provided that we “may review all grounds found by the trial court to justify the termination of Fathers parental rights in this matter.” In re K.A.S., No. 259P22 (7 Oct. 2022).
¶ 3 In G.B., our Supreme Court affirmed the termination of an incarcerated fathers parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2021), supported by the trial courts finding that he had willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct conditions that had led to the childs removal from his custody. G.B., ¶ 22.
¶ 4 Section 7B-1111 enumerates grounds for terminating parental rights. The Supreme Courts decision in G.B. was based on subsection (a)(2) of that statute, while our decision in this case affirmed, under subsection (a)(6), the trial courts finding that Father is incapable of providing for the proper care and supervision of his child such that the child is a dependent juvenile.
¶ 5 Although the trial court in this case also found that Father had willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the condition leading to his loss of custody of his child, the same ground at issue in G.B., we did not address that ground in our prior opinion and need not address it now. It is well established that a single ground for termination under Section 7B-1111 is sufficient to support termination, so that if the appellate court affirms the trial courts termination order based on one of several grounds, the appellate court need not review the additional grounds found by the trial court. In re A.S.D., 378 N.C. 425, 2021-NCSC-94, ¶ 21. For this reason, we decline the Supreme Courts invitation that we “may” consider other grounds for termination, and our review of G.B. does not affect our decision affirming the termination of parental rights based on the separate ground of dependency. Accordingly, our holding in that opinion is undisturbed and we affirm the trial courts order terminating Fathers parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
FOOTNOTES
1
. Our prior opinion also addressed Respondent Mothers appeal from the trial courts order. Mother did not join in Fathers petition to the Supreme Court.
INMAN, Judge.
Judges HAMPSON and GRIFFIN concur.