In re I.B.M.
| Citation | 2022 NCCOA 462 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA22-51 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: I.B.M., N.L.M. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 8 June 2022.
Appeal by Respondent from order entered 18 August 2021 by Judge Carlton Terry in Davidson County Nos. 19 JA 27-28 District Court.
Sheri A. Woodyard for Petitioner-Appellee Davidson County Department of Social Services.
Smith Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell &Jernigan, L.L.P., by Michael W. Mitchell and Andrew M. Benton, for Guardian ad Litem.
Richard Croutharmel for Respondent-Appellant-Mother.
¶ 1 Respondent-Mother appeals from the trial court's permanency planning order ceasing reunification efforts between her and her children and eliminating reunification from their permanent plan. Respondent-Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ceasing reunification efforts by failing to make necessary findings under N.C. Gen Stat. § 7B-906.2(d). We disagree and affirm the decision of the trial court.
¶ 2 In September 2018, the Lexington Police Department responded to a call at a Red Roof Inn where Respondent-Mother was staying with her two children, ten-year-old Ibrahim and nine-year-old Niles.[1] Police found the children crying and Respondent-Mother screaming as if she was being attacked. Respondent-Mother appeared to be hallucinating and under the influence of drugs. The police subsequently found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the room. Respondent-Mother was arrested and charged with child abuse and drug offenses. Because Respondent-Father[2] could not be found, the children were placed temporarily with their paternal uncle and enrolled in school.
¶ 3 On 23 November 2018, Respondent-Father picked up the children from their uncle, and in December 2018, the children and Respondent-Father were reunited with Respondent-Mother. The children remained with their parents until February 2019. During these few months, the family lived in Lexington, Salisbury, and Thomasville, frequently moving from hotel to hotel or staying with friends. The children were not enrolled in school during this time.
¶ 4 Respondent-Father and Respondent-Mother's relationship is characterized by frequent domestic violence. In 2012, Respondent-Father was convicted of assaulting Respondent-Mother. In January 2019, the police were called to the family's room at a Comfort Inn where the parents were loudly arguing. At the time, RespondentMother had untreated substance abuse issues, and Respondent-Father had pending methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana charges.
¶ 5 A DSS social worker, J. Ledbetter, began investigating the family in February 2019, and she met with Respondent-Mother on 11 February and 19 February. At some point that same month, Respondent-Mother left the children with a paternal aunt for a few hours "to get some money." After two hours had passed, the children called their paternal uncle, whom they had previously stayed with, to come get them. After Respondent-Mother retrieved Ibrahim and Niles, the children called their uncle again and told him they were afraid of being at the residence where RespondentMother had taken them.
¶ 6 The next day, Respondent-Mother called Social Worker Ledbetter asking for transportation to enroll the children in school. When the social worker arrived, Respondent-Mother "became irate" with the social worker, saying that the children did not need to be enrolled in school, and that she was leaving town with the children. That same day, DSS filed juvenile petitions and took the children into nonsecure custody.
¶ 7 On 29 March 2019, Respondent-Mother entered a case plan with DSS, agreeing to address her mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, and parenting skills. She also agreed to obtain steady employment and a suitable place to live. However, Respondent-Mother failed to attend the 3 July 2019 adjudication hearing and the children were adjudicated to be neglected.
¶ 8 Both parents attended the subsequent disposition hearing on 11 July 2019. In an order entered following the disposition hearing, the trial court found: (1) Respondent-Mother had made little progress with her plan: (2) she was not completing offered drug screens; (3) had not enrolled in or provided verification of enrollment in domestic violence or substance abuse treatment programs; (4) behaved antagonistically with DSS; (5) attended 12 of her 18 scheduled visits with the children, but occasionally behaved inappropriately, arrived late, or left early; (6) refused to sign releases allowing Social Worker Ledbetter to obtain information from her probation officer or parenting class; (7) denied use of illegal substances despite her drug charges; and, (8) did not understand why her children were in foster care. At the time, Respondent-Mother was also unemployed with no reported housing. Ultimately, the trial court ordered Respondent-Mother to attend domestic violence and parenting classes, complete random drug screens, obtain stable employment and housing, sign up for child support, obtain a valid driver's license, maintain contact with DSS, and sign releases for DSS to access her service provider information, as well as for her probation officer and any other treatment provider she attends.
¶ 9 On 28 August 2019, the trial court conducted a permanency planning hearing. At this hearing, the trial court found that Respondent-Mother had made no progress on her case plan, was not participating in or cooperating with the plan, was not making herself available to DSS, and was acting in a manner inconsistent with the health and safety of the children. At this time, reunification with a parent remained part of the permanent plan.
¶ 10 On 23 October 2019, the trial court conducted another permanency planning hearing. Again, the trial court found that Respondent-Mother had not made progress, was not participating in the plan, and was acting contrary to the health and safety of the juveniles. The court also found that the children were doing well in the stability of their current placement and that Respondent-Mother had not demonstrated her ability to provide a safe and stable home for the children. In its permanency planning order, the trial court ceased reunification efforts between the children and their parents and changed the permanent plan to one of adoption and guardianship with a relative. Respondent-Mother did not appeal this order.
¶ 11 Another permanency planning hearing was held on 24 June 2020. At this hearing, the trial court found that Respondent-Mother had made significant progress on her plan in a reasonable time: she (1) was in therapy; (2) completed an eight-week domestic violence class and parenting classes; (3) was regularly attending visitation with her children; and, (4) had obtained stable housing and employment. The court also found that she was participating in the plan, making herself available to DSS and the GAL, and was not acting in a manner inconsistent with the juveniles' health and safety. Consequently, the trial court changed the permanent plan to one of reunification. The trial court allowed Respondent-Mother to have supervised visits with the children, but excluded Respondent-Father, and ordered that RespondentMother complete substance abuse treatment.
¶ 12 On 23 September 2020, another permanency planning hearing was held with Respondent-Mother being present. The trial court again found that RespondentMother was making progress, participating in the plan, keeping contact with DSS and the GAL, and not acting inconsistently with the juveniles' health and safety. In addition to her progress from the previous hearing, Respondent-Mother had completed substance abuse treatment. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the children to be placed in a trial home placement with Respondent-Mother. The trial court also found that it was not in the children's best interest to have visits with Respondent-Father and ordered that Respondent-Father was not to have any contact with the children unless supervised by DSS.
¶ 13 On 18 November 2020, another permanency planning hearing was held with Respondent-Mother present. The trial court found, inter alia, that RespondentFather had not enrolled in or completed domestic violence classes, made no progress, failed to participate in the plan, failed to maintain contact with DSS, and behaved contrary to the children's health and safety. The court continued to authorize the trial home placement with Respondent-Mother, but ceased reunification efforts with Respondent-Father and ordered that Respondent-Father have no contact with the minor children.
¶ 14 At a review hearing on 2 December 2020, the trial court found that, immediately after the 18 November 2020 hearing Respondent-Mother allowed the children to have contact with Respondent-Father in violation of the court's prior order. Following the 18 November 2020 hearing, Respondent-Mother picked up Respondent-Father and allowed him to stay at her home with the children for a few days, despite knowing he was not allowed contact with them. On 20 November 2020, Respondent-Mother drove Respondent-Father and the children to pick up Respondent-Father's girlfriend, over two hours away. An argument ensued during the drive, which led to a physical altercation between the parents while Ibrahim and Niles were present in the car. During the altercation, Respondent-Father had grabbed the steering wheel and taken $800 from Respondent-Mother's wallet. A police...
To continue reading
Request your trial