In re J.Q., _ N.C. App. _ (June 17, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded

Facts: The child at issue was adjudicated neglected due to concerns for Mother’s substance use and domestic violence. At initial disposition, custody was ordered to Mother with secondary custody and placement with the child’s grandmother. At the first review hearing, the trial court ceased reunification efforts, made custody with a relative the permanent plan, and ordered custody to the grandmother with a permanency planning hearing to be held within 90 days. Mother appeals the order, arguing that the trial court failed to hold a permanency planning hearing within the statutory timeframe and lacked authority to cease reunification efforts at a review hearing.
- Author’s Note: Although on the review hearing track, because physical custody was placed with grandmother thereby removing it from Mother such that she could not take her child back without violating a court order, this case likely should have been placed on the permanency planning hearing track.
The issue of a trial court’s failure to follow a statutory mandate is automatically preserved for appeal. The standard of review is de novo.
When custody has not been removed from a parent, guardian, or custodian at initial disposition, a review hearing is subsequently held. G.S. 7B-906.1(a). If the trial court determines at a review hearing that removal is in the best interests of the child, the trial court is required to schedule a permanency planning hearing within 30 days of review. G.S. 7B-906.1(d)(1a). In In re T.H., 362 N.C. 446 (2008), the supreme court held that a writ of mandamus, rather than further delaying the matter through an appeal, is the proper remedy where a trial court fails to hold a hearing within a statutory timeframe. Here, the trial court failed to timely hold a permanency planning hearing as required by G.S. 7B-906.1(d)(1a). Mother did not petition for a writ of mandamus and Mother was not prejudiced by the error, as the error occurred subsequent to the hearing itself and a new hearing would not remedy the error.
At a review hearing, G.S. 7B-906.1(d1) authorizes a trial court to maintain the juvenile’s placement or order a different placement, appoint a guardian, or order any disposition authorized by G.S. 7B-903. The statutes governing review and permanency planning hearings only authorize the court to cease reunification efforts at a permanency planning hearing. G.S. 7B-906.2(b). Here, the trial court lacked authority to cease reunification efforts with Mother at the review hearing. That portion of the order is vacated and remanded for a permanency planning hearing to determine whether reunification efforts should be continued.