In re K.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (August 1, 2023)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded
There is a dissent
by Stroud, J.
- Facts: This matter involves three juveniles adjudicated neglected and dependent. All three juveniles were placed with their great aunt, a North Carolina resident, within a week of the petition’s filing. Following adjudication, the initial dispositional order set the primary plan as reunification and the secondary plan as custody with a court approved caretaker. The court continued to hold dispositional hearings and enter orders for the following three years, during which placement continued with their great aunt. During this time, the court ordered that the grandmother, a Georgia resident, be considered for placement and that an ICPC home study assessment be made by Georgia officials. A later ordered ceased reunification efforts and shifted the primary plan to guardianship with a secondary plan of adoption. After hearings over several months and prior to the completion of the grandmother’s home study, the court granted guardianship of the children to the great aunt and granted mother, a Georgia resident, voluntary electronic visitation twice a week. The court noted the matter closed, relieved DSS and the GAL of further responsibilities, but retained jurisdiction. Mother appeals.
- Trial courts must “provide for visitation that is in the best interests of the juvenile consistent with the juvenile’s health and safety, including no visitation.” G.S. 7B-905.1(a).
- The court of appeals has held that ordering electronic-only visitation is equivalent to granting no visitation and therefore the court must make specific findings equivalent to the findings required in granting no visitation. Sl. Op. at 8-9 (citations omitted). The court “must make ‘specific findings that’ a parent ‘forfeited her right to visitation or that visitation would be inappropriate under the circumstances.’ ” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted).
- The findings regarding visitation are insufficient to meet the requirements for electronic-only visitation. Limited findings include the current visitation plan of weekly virtual visits and telephone calls, initiated by mother, are inconsistent and often during school hours and dinner time, and provide the date of the last in-person visit.
- Frequent in-person visitation may not be eliminated solely due to the distance between children placed in-state and an out-of-state parent.
- G.S. 7B-905.1(c) requires an order providing for visitation to “specify the minimum frequency and length of the visits and whether the visits shall be supervised.” Noncompliance with the requirements of G.S. 7B-905.1 is referred to as “leaving the terms of visitation to the discretion of the custodians.” Sl. Op. at 11, FN 2.
- The order providing for electronic-only visitation twice a week only meets the requirement of specifying the minimum frequency of the visits, while not addressing the length or supervision of the visits. Therefore, the order improperly delegates authority regarding visitation.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
VisitationTopic:
Findings