In re A.J.J., _ N.C. App. _ (July 2, 2025)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded

Facts: The child at issue was adjudicated neglected and dependent. During permanency planning the trial court made findings of Mother’s failure to make progress on her case plan, ceased reunification efforts with Mother, and placed the child with the child’s paternal uncle and his girlfriend. At the final permanency planning hearing, the trial court ordered legal and physical custody of the child to the paternal uncle and his girlfriend (custodians), terminated jurisdiction, and transferred the proceeding to a Chapter 50 action. Mother appeals the permanency planning order, arguing the trial court failed to make the required verifications under G.S. 7B-906.1(j).
Permanency planning orders are reviewed to determine “whether there is competent evidence in the record to support the findings [of fact] and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). A trial court can consider any evidence at a permanency planning hearing it finds to be “relevant, reliable, and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
G.S. 7B-906.1(j) requires that a trial court awarding custody to a non-parent must verify the proposed custodian (1) “understands the legal significance of the placement or appointment” and (2) “will have adequate resources to care appropriately for the juvenile.” “The fact that the prospective custodian . . . has provided stable placement for the juvenile for at least six consecutive months is evidence that the person has adequate resources[,]” but “does not per se compel a conclusion that the ‘person receiving custody . . .understands the legal significance of the placement.’ ” G.S. 7B-906.1(j); Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted). Specific findings are not required but the record “must show the trial court received and considered reliable evidence that the guardian or custodian had adequate resources and understood the legal significance of custody or guardianship.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). Permanent custody orders that fail to contain the required verification must be vacated and remanded.
The evidence shows the trial court verified that the custodians understood the legal significance of being awarded custody of the child, including social worker testimony, testimony of one of the custodians, and the GAL and DSS reports. “Evidence that a custodian understands the legal significance of the placement may consist of ‘testimony from the potential [custodian] of a desire to take [custody] of the child . . . and testimony from the social worker that the potential [custodian] was willing to assume legal [custody].” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted). Here, although the girlfriend did not testify, the uncle testified and spoke to the couple’s willingness and ability to care for the child. The social worker recommended placement with the custodians and testified that the couple contacted DSS to communicate their desire to be assessed for placement, the social worker discussed DSS’s recommendations for placement with the custodians prior to the final PP hearing, and that the couple agreed to DSS’s recommendations. Supreme Court precedent holds that “when awarding custody of a juvenile to a custodial couple, the testimony of one of the custodians – without the testimony of the other – is sufficient where the testifying custodian expresses the custodial couple understands the legal significance of the placement.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted). Here, the uncle testified that he and his girlfriend could continue to meet the child’s needs on a long-term basis, understood the recommendation by DSS, understood they would receive custody of the child; were willing and able to continue the child’s counseling sessions, and were working on the child progressing in school. In addition, the GAL report noted the custodians had been caring for the child’s medical and dental needs and had follow-up appointments scheduled for the child.
The evidence shows the trial court verified the adequacy of the custodians’ resources to care for the child. The findings show the child had been living with the custodians for more than six months at the time of the final PP hearing. The uncle and social worker testified to the couple’s financial ability to meet the child’s needs, including medical needs, and described the child’s living space and food security at their home. Mother cites to precedent requiring evidence of income or employment. Those cases were decided before G.S. 7B-906.1(j) was amended (effective October 1, 2019) to state the fact that the prospective custodian or guardian has provided a stable placement for at least six consecutive months is evidence of their adequate resources. No evidence of the couple’s employment or income was presented or required where evidence in the record sufficiently demonstrates the custodians have provided a safe home for the child for more than six months. Additionally, evidence described the child’s living space and showed that the custodians are providing for and are financially able to continue to provide for the child’s medical needs.