In re M.A.C.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: COA22-134
• Citation: 878 S.E.2d 681 (Table)
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: M.A.C., N.G.C., and C.A.B.C., Minor Children
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

878 S.E.2d 681 (Table)

In the MATTER OF: M.A.C., N.G.C., and C.A.B.C., Minor Children

No. COA22-134

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 18, 2022

ZACHARY, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-Mother appeals from the trial court's order eliminating reunification with her minor children from the permanent plan. After careful review, we affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 Respondent-Mother has been in a romantic relationship with Respondent-Father for 15 years. Three children, "Maya," "Nora," and "Chris,"¹ (collectively, "the children") have been born of the relationship.

¶ 3 On 8 August 2020, Petitioner Wilkes County Department of Social Services ("DSS") received a report that, while Respondent-Mother and her seventeen-year-old brother were making marijuana wax, Respondent-Father "had an altercation with [Respondent-Mother]’s ... brother and shot him." Maya and Nora were present at the time of the illegal drug activity and the shooting, but Chris was not; he was later found at his paternal aunt and uncle's residence. Respondent-Father fled the scene and Respondent-Mother was arrested on outstanding warrants.

¶ 4 On 10 August 2020, DSS filed petitions alleging that the children were neglected and dependent juveniles, and the trial court entered orders awarding nonsecure custody of the children to DSS. Chris was placed in his aunt and uncle's home while Maya and Nora were placed in a licensed foster home.

¶ 5 On 14 September 2020, the petitions came on for an adjudication and disposition hearing in Wilkes County District Court. By order entered on 14 October 2020, the trial court adjudicated the children as neglected, continued their legal and physical custody with DSS, and granted DSS placement authority over the children. The trial court awarded Respondent-Parents one hour of supervised visitation twice a month. DSS placed Maya and Nora with their paternal aunt and uncle, alongside Chris.

¶ 6 Also on 14 October 2020, Respondent-Mother signed a Family Services Case Plan, pursuant to which Respondent-Mother agreed to (1) complete parenting classes; (2) obtain and maintain employment; (3) obtain and maintain appropriate and clean housing; (4) complete a mental health assessment and follow the treatment recommendations; (5) participate in family therapy; (6) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow the treatment recommendations; (7) submit to drug screens; (8) complete a domestic violence assessment and follow all recommendations; (9) keep all weapons in locked containers; (10) contact DSS weekly; (11) attend all meetings, court proceedings, and scheduled visitations; and (12) resolve her legal charges.

¶ 7 On 7 December 2020, the matter came on for a review hearing. By order entered on 9 April 2021, the trial court found that Respondent-Mother was "uncooperative and ha[d] completed nothing on [her] case plan." In contrast, the trial court found that the children were "thriving" in their placement.

¶ 8 Thereafter, Respondent-Mother began making progress with her case plan, and by the time this matter came on for a permanency planning hearing on 7 June 2021, the trial court found that she "ha[d] completed the majority of her case plan." Respondent-Mother had completed parenting classes, had obtained employment and "for the most part appropriate" housing, had visited the children five times in the previous three months, and was contacting her social worker regularly. She had completed mental health and substance abuse assessments and had "started following the recommendations from said assessments." Respondent-Mother had also "cooperated with drug screens" but had not passed each test.

¶ 9 Following the 7 June 2021 hearing, the trial court entered a permanency planning order on 2 July 2021 that established reunification as the primary plan and placement with an approved caregiver as the secondary plan. The trial court also ordered, inter alia , that Respondent-Mother "cooperate with a psychological evaluation."

¶ 10 The matter next came on for hearing on 20 September 2021. In its court report for the September hearing, DSS acknowledged that Respondent-Mother "completed the majority of her case plan." However, DSS also noted that Respondent-Mother had failed another drug screen, that her "housing is not appropriate" and that, when completing her psychological evaluation, she gave information regarding her housing and employment that was inconsistent with what she told her social worker. The guardian ad litem ("GAL") echoed DSS's assessment, stating in its report that Respondent-Mother "has completed a lot of her case plan but has shown she is too unstable/inconsistent to stay on the right path."

¶ 11 As for the children, DSS reported that they were still "thriving in th[eir] placement" with the paternal aunt and uncle. DSS and the GAL each recommended that the children's permanent plan be changed to guardianship with a secondary plan of custody with a court-approved caretaker.

¶ 12 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adopted the recommendations of DSS and the GAL. By order entered on 9 November 2021, the trial court set guardianship as the primary plan with custody with an approved caregiver as the secondary plan, and awarded guardianship of the children to the paternal aunt and uncle.

¶ 13 As specifically regards Respondent-Mother's progress with her case plan, the trial court made the following findings of fact:

9. The children's mother, [Respondent-Mother], signed a Family Services Case Plan (FSCP) on October 14, 2020. [Respondent-Mother] has partially completed her Case Plan. [She] has completed her parenting classes and provided the Social Worker with her completion certificate.

10. [Respondent-Mother] has completed her substance abuse and mental health assessments. She is sporadically following the recommendations from said assessments. She was ordered to cooperate with a psychological evaluation. She completed this on August 19, 2021.

11. [Respondent-Mother] has inconsistently cooperated with drug screens. Since the last court date on June 7, 2021, [Respondent-Mother]’s drug screening and results are as follows. On June 9, 2021, [Respondent-Mother] arrived for a drug screen but would not comply with an observed urine screen, so the testing did not take place. On June 10, 2021[,] she was a no show. On June 21, 2021, she was not able to be screened due to incarceration. On July 14, 2021[,] she passed the drug screen. On July 28, 2021, she tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine and marijuana metabolite. On September 3, 2021[,] she no showed for testing. On September 9, 2021[,] she passed the screen, but the sample was diluted. On September 10, 2021[,] she no showed for testing. [Respondent-Mother] has denied drug use and stated the tests are incorrect. However, she has also stated that the stress of not being with her children is why she is doing drugs.

12. Since the last court date on June 7, 2021, [Respondent-Mother] has had two supervised visits with the children, on July 14, 2021 and July 28, 2021. The visits went well. Visitation has been suspended due to a failed drug screen in July. She is ordered to pay $50.00 per month in support for the children, but is in arrears.

13. [Respondent-Mother]’s employment has been erratic. She has not been employed for the past two months. She is residing with [B.S.], and per her testimony, she has been residing there for a year.

14. [Respondent-Mother] testified that she provided school supplies for [Chris], bought the children Easter baskets, snacks, clothes, car seats, and painting supplies. She stated she has remodeled rooms for the children to sleep in and has bought beds. However, [Respondent-Mother]’s testimony related to certain topics, such as drug use, appears inconsistent. It is difficult for the Court to ascertain whether she is having difficulty remembering or is being dishonest with the Court.

....

21. It is not likely that it will be possible for the children to be returned to the home of a parent in the next six months due to lack of progress on their Case Plans.

¶ 14 Based on these findings of fact, among others, the trial court made the following conclusions of law:

1. The minor child, [Chris] has been placed with [the paternal aunt and uncle] since August 8, 2020. The minor children, [Nora] and [Maya], have been placed with [the paternal aunt and uncle] since September 14, 2020. [The paternal aunt and uncle] are committed to caring for the minor children and providing guardianship, the minor children have been doing well in this placement, and this placement is in their best interests.

2. The Respondent Parents have acted inconsistently with their parental rights and responsibilities, and it is unlikely that the Respondent Parents will be able to care for the minor children within the next six months.

3. Pursuant to NCGS § 7B-906.1(n), neither the minor children's best interests nor the rights of any party require that review hearings be held every six months, and [DSS], the [GAL], and the attorneys of record are hereby released from further responsibility in these matters; however, all parties are aware the matters may be brought before this Court for review at any time by the filing of a motion.

¶ 15 Respondent-Mother filed notice of appeal on 6 December 2021. Respondent-Father did not appeal the trial court's 9 November 2021 order. Consequently, he is not a party to this appeal.

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

¶ 16 In her notice of appeal and appellate brief, Respondent-Mother cites N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(a)(5) as providing the statutory basis for her appeal from the trial court's 9 November 2021 order. Section 7B-1001(a)(5) provides for an appeal to this Court from:

An order under G.S. 7B-906.2(b) eliminating reunification, as defined by G.S. 7B-101(18c), as a permanent plan by either of the following:

a. A parent who is a party and:

1. Has preserved the right to appeal the order in writing within 30 days after entry and service of the order.

2. A termination of

...