In re M.G.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 7, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: This case involves three siblings, two of whom were adjudicated neglected and one who was adjudicated abused and neglected, based on findings that one of the children was sexually abused by their Father while in the custody of their paternal Grandmother. During the dispositional stage, the children were placed in DSS custody and Grandmother was ordered monthly visitation. Grandmother denied father sexually abused his daughter despite evidence of both testing positive for gonorrhea. The court ordered Grandmother to attend classes or support groups for parenting a child who was sexually abused, which is separate from the sex abuse class she completed on her own; receive a new psychological evaluation where she shares information about the court’s findings of the child’s sexual abuse with the evaluator, and cooperate with the recommendations of the evaluations, which included Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). At the permanency planning hearing from which this appeal arises, the court found Grandmother had failed to make progress within a reasonable period of time and ordered a primary plan of adoption and secondary plan of guardianship, ceased reunification efforts with Grandmother, and eliminated reunification and visitation. Grandmother appeals, challenging the court’s findings and the elimination of reunification and arguing that the trial court misapprehended the law by applying the neglect TPR ground to a finding, and switching the burden of proof to Grandmother. Separate case summaries address Grandmother’s additional appellate issues – that DSS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification and that the GAL failed to discharge their statutory duties.
- Permanency planning orders are reviewed to examine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. “The trial court’s dispositional choices – including the decision to eliminate reunification from the permanent plan – are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Sl. Op. at 10-11 (citation omitted).
- The trial court must adopt concurrent primary and secondary permanent plans determined to be in the best interest of the child at each permanency planning hearing. G.S. 7B-906.2(a). “Accordingly, neither the parent nor [DSS] bears the burden of proof . . .” Sl. Op. at 26 (citation omitted). “Reunification must be the primary or secondary plan unless the permanent plan has been achieved or the trial court . . . as is this case, (3) makes written findings in the permanency planning order that ‘reunification efforts would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety.’ ” Sl. Op. at 9, quoting G.S. 7B-906.2(b). In finding that reunification efforts would be unsuccessful or inconsistent, G.S. 7B-906.2(d) lists four required written findings that must also be included in the court’s order. Appellate courts have held that these findings do not have to “track the statutory language verbatim, but they ‘must make clear that the trial court considered the evidence in light of whether reunification would be [clearly unsuccessful] or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time.’ ” Sl. Op. at 9-10 (quoting In re J.M., 385 N.C. 584, 594 (2023)). “The possibility that a neglected juvenile faces a substantial risk of future neglect upon reunification is a relevant consideration in determining whether reunification is appropriate.” Sl. Op. at 24.
- Each of the five categories of challenged findings are supported by the evidence, including testimony of the DSS social worker, DSS supervisor, and Grandmother. Supported findings include Grandmother’s ability and failure to obtain DBT; continued relationship with and priority to Father; failure to complete further ordered sex abuse parenting classes (though the finding that she completed no sex abuse education is stricken as she completed the course ordered at initial disposition); failure to acknowledge Father sexually abused the child; and inappropriate behavior at visits in violation of court orders.
- The court properly addressed the required considerations of G.S. 7B-906.2(d) to end reunification efforts, including that Grandmother remained available to the court, was not cooperating with DSS or making progress with the case plan, and was acting inconsistently with the safety of the children. The court did not err in considering the possibility of future neglect when determining the best interests of the children, rejecting Grandmother’s argument that the court applied standards relevant to the termination of parental rights. “[J]ust because the likelihood of future neglect or abuse is relevant to the termination of parental rights does not render it irrelevant to a permanency planning ruling, nor does the trial court’s consideration of such imply that the trial court is applying an improper standard to its analysis.” Sl. Op. at 24 (emphasis in original).
- The court did not impermissibly place the burden of proof on Grandmother. Findings address the history of the case and Grandmother’s progress (or lack thereof) in creating a safe environment for the children which support the court’s conclusion that Grandmother has not made sufficient progress such that reunification is in the children’s best interest.
- Findings support the court’s conclusion that Grandmother failed to make reasonable progress; the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that reunification efforts be ceased. “Whatever progress Grandmother has made on her case plan has not been sufficient to allow her to provide a safe home for the children,” most significantly due to her refusal to “understand or admit the danger Father represents or the harm he has already caused.” Sl. Op. at 30. “This standing alone could be enough to support the trial court’s order ceasing reunification.” Sl. Op. at 29. Additionally, although Grandmother engaged in largely positive visits with the children, maintained her pain management therapy sessions, completed one parenting course, and completed the DBT evaluation, she failed to obtain DBT and sexual assault education as ordered and recommended by psychological evaluations.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Permanency Planning HearingTopic: