In re D.C., 289 N.C. App. 30 (2023)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: The juveniles were adjudicated neglected. After parents’ failed to make progress on their case plan, DSS filed a TPR petition. The petition was granted based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The parents appealed. The supreme court reversed and remanded and issued a mandate that the trial court consider the record before it to determine whether DSS proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that one or more TPR grounds existed. On remand, the court heard arguments from counsel, reviewed the record, stated the earlier standard of proof was a clerical error, and entered a new order finding 2 grounds based on the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard. The parents appealed arguing the trial court did not comply with the mandate by not reconsidering the evidence and holding a new dispositional hearing.
- Whether a trial court complied with the appellate court’s mandate is reviewed de novo. The trial court must strictly follow the mandate, and the plain language of the mandate is controlling.
- The plain language of the mandate was to review and reconsider the record before it and apply the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard when making its findings of fact. The trial court’s order states it reviewed the record and evidence and arguments of counsel and applied the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard. Despite what father argues, the mandate did not include a requirement that the trial court hold a dispositional hearing. The court was not required to hear additional evidence or hold a new hearing. The court followed the mandate language to review and reconsider the record before it.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
AppealTopic:
Remand Instructions