In re L.M., ___ N.C. App. ___ (November 19, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Mother appeals a permanency planning order (PPO) eliminating reunification as a permanent plan for six of her seven children when the court denied her motion to continue based on her absence. The six older children were adjudicated abused, neglected, and/or dependent at various times. Mother was present at each adjudication hearing and subsequent dispositional hearings for the six older children except for one permanency planning hearing. DSS obtained nonsecure custody of Mother’s seventh, youngest child and Mother did not appear at the nonsecure custody hearings. Mother also missed subsequent hearings for all seven children. The trial court scheduled for the same day the adjudication and disposition hearings for the youngest child, the permanency planning hearings for the six older children, and a contempt hearing for Mother. Mother received fifteen days’ notice of the hearing and its purpose. Mother did not appear but communicated with her counsel that morning that she did not have a ride. Mother’s counsel motioned to continue based on Mother’s absence. The trial court denied the motion, citing to Mother regularly not appearing in the proceedings and her noncompliance with orders. The hearing proceeded, and Mother’s counsel had the opportunity to participate in the hearing. Mother argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to continue and relying on unsupported assumptions regarding her attendance during the life of her children’s cases.
- Denial of a motion to continue that does not assert a constitutional basis is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Denial may be grounds for a new trial only if the respondent can show the trial court erred and that error was prejudicial. The trial court must consider all facts in evidence and may not “act on its own mental impression or facts outside of the record” in making its conclusions; however, the trial court may “take into consideration facts within its judicial knowledge.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted). Appellate precedent holds that a parent’s absence at a dispositional hearing is not per se prejudicial.
- G.S. 7B-803 governs continuances in abuse, neglect, and dependency proceedings. Continuances may be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances when necessary for the proper administration of justice or in the best interests of the juvenile.” G.S. 7B-803. Extraordinary circumstances involve “[a] highly unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). Continuances are disfavored and the burden of showing sufficient grounds is on the party seeking the continuance.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to continue. The trial court’s denial based on Mother’s regular absence in the proceedings was premised on judicial knowledge rather than mental impression. The trial court had presided over six hearings regarding Mother’s seven children for which she had not appeared, had previously granted continuances in the case when Mother was in the hospital or incarcerated, and regularly received court reports from DSS and the children’s GAL that included the children’s status and case history. Mother offered no further reasoning other than her absence to support the motion to continue for extraordinary circumstances. Citing In re L.G., 274 N.C. App. 292 (2020) and the purpose of permanency planning hearings stated in G.S. 7B-906.1(g) and (i), the court of appeals noted that denial of the motion advanced justice for the children in identifying permanency plans for the children whose cases had been active from between three and six years at the time of the hearing. Further, assuming error, Mother did not demonstrate she was prejudiced. Her absence alone does not amount to prejudice and she waived her constitutional arguments by failing to preserve the issues.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Permanency Planning HearingTopic: