In re A.J.J., ___ N.C. App. ___ (July 2, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded
- Facts: The child at issue was adjudicated neglected and dependent. The trial court ultimately granted legal and physical custody of the child to the child’s paternal uncle and girlfriend (custodians), terminated jurisdiction, and transferred the case to a Chapter 50 proceeding. Mother appeals, arguing the trial court erred in transferring the juvenile proceeding to a Chapter 50 action because (1) the court failed to make required findings under G.S. 7B-911(c)(1)-(2) and G.S. 50-13.2(a) in the permanency planning order and Chapter 50 order and (2) the findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence, insufficient, and conclusory.
- Trial court orders are reviewed de novo for statutory compliance.
- G.S. 7B-911(c)(1) requires the trial court to “[m]ake findings and conclusions that support the entry of a custody order in an action under Chapter 50 . . .” G.S. 50-13.2 requires the trial court to award custody “to such person . . . as will promote the interest and welfare of the child.” Sl. Op. at 25. The trial court must consider and make written findings of relevant factors under G.S. 50-13.2(a) to support its custody determination. “These findings may concern physical, mental, or financial fitness or any other factors brought out by the evidence and relevant to the issue of the welfare of the child.” Sl. Op. at 26 (citation omitted). Findings may not be conclusory and failure to include “detailed findings of fact from which an appellate court can determine that the order is in the best interests of the child . . .” is a fatal defect. Id.
- The trial court’s findings support its conclusion that custody with the uncle and his girlfriend were in the child’s best interests. The findings were supported by competent evidence and included Mother’s mental health history, lack of suitable housing, failure to make progress on her case plan and consistently visit with the child; the custodians’ ability and desire to provide for the child; and the child’s desire to remain in the placement.
- G.S. 7B-911(c)(2) requires the trial court to make a finding that “there is not a need for continued State intervention on behalf of the juvenile through a juvenile court proceeding.” The court is not required to use the exact statutory language.
- The trial court’s PPO findings satisfy G.S. 7B-911(c)(2)(a) regarding State intervention. The trial court ultimately found that there is no longer a need for the juvenile court or DSS to remain involved with the family, ceased reasonable efforts toward reunification, and noted that the child’s plan of custody had been achieved. The court ordered its jurisdiction terminated, entered a separate Ch. 50 custody order, and released the attorneys and child’s GAL. The trial court’s finding that state intervention is not required is supported by the record, which addressed the custodians and Mother working together regarding visitation and DSS testifying there was no reason for the court to remain involved.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Terminate JurisdictionTopic:
G.S. 7B-911