In re C.W., 110519 NCCA, COA18-1236

Docket Nº:COA18-1236
Opinion Judge:MURPHY, JUDGE.
Party Name:IN THE MATTER OF: C.W. & P.H.
Attorney:Mercedes O. Chut for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services. Surratt Thompson & Ceberio PLLC, by Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-appellant mother. No brief filed for guardian ad litem
Judge Panel:Chief Judge MCGEE and Judge COLLINS concur.
Case Date:November 05, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN THE MATTER OF: C.W. & P.H.

No. COA18-1236

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

November 5, 2019

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 October 2019.

Appeal by Respondent-Mother from order entered 28 March 2018 by Judge Angela C. Foster in Guilford County Nos. 16 JA 147, 204 District Court.

Mercedes O. Chut for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services.

Surratt Thompson & Ceberio PLLC, by Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-appellant mother.

No brief filed for guardian ad litem

MURPHY, JUDGE.

Respondent-Mother ("Nana")1, the mother of juveniles Sally and Paloma, appeals from the trial court's order removing reunification as a permanent plan and ceasing reunification efforts. The trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and those findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions of law. We affirm the trial court's order.

BACKGROUND

On 22 February 2016, the Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") filed a petition alleging that Sally was an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. In its petition, DHHS stated that both Sally's father and Nana had been arrested and charged with human trafficking and prostitution of a minor. After Nana and the father were arrested, Sally and Paloma went to stay with their maternal great grandmother, Claudette. DHHS subsequently learned that Paloma had been sexually abused by her fifteen-year-old uncle and that Claudette was aware of the abuse but did not report it. On 18 February 2016, Claudette allowed Nana to call Paloma from jail and admonish her for disclosing the abuse. At the time the petition was filed, Claudette was in the process of being evicted from her home. DHHS subsequently obtained nonsecure custody of Sally, and Paloma went to live with her biological father, Wilfred.

The petition was heard in Guilford County District Court on 6 April 2016. Nana both consented to an adjudication concluding Sally was an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile and stipulated to facts that would support that adjudication. On 5 May 2016, the trial court entered its written adjudication and disposition order. Nana was ordered to comply with her case plan, which required her to maintain consistent housing; obtain verifiable employment; participate in parenting skills classes; and complete mental health and substance abuse assessments and comply with any resulting recommendations. Sally remained in DHHS custody and Nana was awarded a minimum of two one-hour visits with her each week.

On 14 April 2016, DHHS filed a petition alleging that Paloma was a neglected and dependent juvenile. In addition to allegations similar to those included in Sally's petition, DHHS also alleged Wilfred was a drug dealer and that he stayed with family members who were also drug dealers and drug users. DHHS obtained nonsecure custody of Paloma and placed her in foster care.

Paloma's petition was heard on 8 February 2017. On 10 March 2017, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Paloma as an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. Nana was ordered to comply with her previously-established case plan and her visitations with Paloma were suspended. Sally and Paloma's cases were then combined, and a permanency planning hearing was held on 9 February 2018.

On 28 March 2018, the trial court entered its permanency planning review order that resulted from the February hearing. The trial court found that Nana had not made reasonable...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP