In re L.L., ___ N.C. ___ (December 13, 2024)
Held:
Reversed
There is a dissent
by Riggs, J., joined by Earls, J.
- Facts and procedural history: This case arises from the appeal of a permanency planning order awarding custody to petitioners, the child’s foster parents. DSS filed a petition alleging the child was abused and neglected based on unexplained severe injuries the child sustained as a one-month-old while in the sole care of his parents. As a result of the severe injuries sustained, the child suffers from cerebral palsy, continued seizures, developmental delay, and other disabilities requiring full-time care at home and constant medical monitoring. After the petition was filed Mother moved to Georgia and entered a case plan with DSS that included participating in the child’s medical care. The child was placed with a foster family, the petitioners, upon discharge from the hospital. The child was adjudicated abused and neglected. During permanency planning, the child’s maternal grandfather, who lives in Georgia, expressed interest in custody. The GAL recommended the child remain with petitioners who provide and are committed to continuing the child’s intensive care. The GAL also emphasized that the child becomes unresponsive if the foster mother is not present due to the child’s limited cognitive abilities. DSS recommended placement with the grandfather, who testified that he is willing and able to care for the child with his partner. No party recommended reunification. Prior PPOs and the final PPO found Respondent-Mother never plausibly explained the severe injuries or participated in the child’s medical care as ordered. The court granted legal and physical custody of the child to petitioners. Respondent-Mother appealed. In vacating and remanding the PPO, the court of appeals determined the findings of fact challenged by Respondent-Mother were supported by the evidence but that the findings failed to satisfy the statutory requirements to eliminate reunification. Petitioners filed a petition for discretionary review. This summary discusses whether the PPO satisfied the requirements of G.S. 7B-903(a1) regarding priority of relative placement.
- Whether the trial court properly considered G.S. 7B-903(a1) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. “It is the trial court’s role as fact-finder ‘to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.’ ” Sl. Op. at 23 (citation omitted).
- When a child is placed outside of the home, placement with a relative is given statutory preference. G.S. 7B-903(a1) requires that the trial court “shall first consider whether a relative of the juvenile is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision of the juvenile in a safe home. If the court finds that the relative is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision in a safe home, then the court shall order placement of the juvenile with the relative unless the court finds that the placement is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile.” Sl. Op. at 20, citing G.S. 7B-903(a1) (emphasis in original). The statute’s language “does not require the trial court to make any written findings[,]” and “does not require any specific sequence of findings in the trial court’s order.” Sl. Op. at 21, 22 n.7. The supreme court reasons that “it would be functionally impossible for the trial court to determine which placement option is in the ‘best interests’ of the juvenile without considering and comparing all the placement options.” Sl. Op. at 22.
- Author’s Note: Without expressly overruling prior holdings, this holding appears to supersede prior appellate holdings that require the trial court make a specific finding as to whether a relative is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision in a safe home and if the child is not placed with that relative that such placement is contrary to the child’s best interests.
- Findings show that the trial court considered whether the grandfather was willing and able to care for the child and determined placement with the petitioners was in the child’s best interests. The court found grandfather was employed full-time; was unable to provide the type of childcare necessary to meet the child’s needs; grandfather’s partner, who is not a relative, would care for the child while grandfather was working; neither grandfather nor his partner had met with the child’s doctors to understand the level of medical care required; and grandfather had not formed a bond with the child. Findings also show the child had been living with petitioners for over two years; the child has a bond with petitioners and their children; and petitioners are willing and able to provide for the child’s special and intensive medical needs. In addition to grandfather’s testimony, the court also considered the GAL report received into evidence recommending the child remain with the petitioners and stressing that the child’s therapists agree the child’s condition would severely deteriorate if removed from petitioners’ care. These findings satisfy G.S. 7B-903(a1). The court did not abuse its discretion.
- Dissent: The trial court did not meet the statutory requirements and the PPO should be remanded for further findings. The legislature intended for trial courts to make findings that the court first consider whether placement with a relative would be contrary to the best interests of the child. The plain language of G.S. 7B-903(a1) mandates the trial court consider the suitability of relative placement before considering another placement and does not allow for a direct comparison between relative placement and a foster care placement. Findings show Grandfather was gainfully employed and able to provide for the child together with his partner. The court did not make a finding that placement with grandfather was not in the child’s best interest before determining placement with petitioners was in the child’s best interest, and therefore the court did not satisfy G.S. 7B-903(a1).
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Disposition (All Stages Post-Adjudication)Topic:
Relative Placement