In re N.M.W., ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 21, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded
- Facts: The two siblings at issue were separately adjudicated neglected and dependent based on domestic violence, mental health, and housing concerns. In both child’s proceedings, custody was continued with DSS and the court adopted primary and secondary plans of reunification and adoption. The parents made progress on their case plans, including moving into a suitable home, such that the children were returned to Mother and the younger child’s Father in a trial home placement. The trial home placement was suspended after Mother voluntarily placed the children with a former foster parent following alleged domestic violence incidents with the younger child’s Father. Mother and Father were ordered to re-engage in anger management, domestic violence, and couples counseling. Mother and Father were eventually evicted from their home after live marijuana plants were found in a shed on the property. The children’s primary plans were subsequently changed to adoption with secondary plans of reunification and suspended visitation. DSS filed to terminate both parents’ parental rights. The court ceased reunification efforts at a later permanency planning hearing. Mother’s rights were terminated as to both children and Father’s rights were terminated as to the younger child. Mother appeals the PPO and TPR orders arguing that the trial court failed to make the required findings to support its conclusion to cease reunification efforts. Father’s appeal of the TPR order is summarized separately.
- Orders ceasing reunification efforts are reviewed “to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted).
- G.S. 7B-906.2(b) mandates that reunification be a primary or secondary plan “unless the court made findings under G.S. 7B-901(c) or makes written findings that reunification efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety.” G.S. 7B-906.2(b).
- G.S. 7B-906.2(d) requires the court make written findings at each permanency planning hearing of factors “which shall demonstrate the degree of success or failure toward reunification.” “[O]nly those factors which demonstrate the degree of success or failure toward reunification require written findings.” Sl. Op. at 12, citing In re L.L., 386 N.C. 706, 716 (2024). G.S. 7B-906.2(d) factors include whether the parent is (1) making reasonable progress on their case plan; (2) actively participating and cooperating with DSS and the GAL; (3) available to the court, DSS and the GAL; and (4) their actions are inconsistent with the health or safety of the child.
- The trial court failed to make the statutory findings and supported conclusions which demonstrate the degree of success or failure toward reunification under G.S. 7B-906.2, including whether Mother remained available to DSS and the GAL, whether Mother was acting inconsistent with her parental rights, and whether Mother was acting inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile. The permanency planning order and termination order are vacated and the case remanded for a new permanency planning hearing.
- Dissent: The PPO and TPR order should be affirmed. Supreme court precedent states that “incomplete findings of fact in the cease reunification order may be cured by findings of fact in the termination order.” Dissent Sl. Op. at 2. The detailed findings in both orders taken together show that the trial court properly considered all of the factors required under G.S. 7B-906.2 to support a conclusion to cease reunification efforts. Findings are not required to track the statutory language verbatim. Findings in the PPO and TPR order addressed Mother’s availability to DSS, the GAL, and the court throughout the case; Mother’s engagement in services over the years; that Mother had prior involvement with DSS in two other states to address the same recurring domestic violence and mental health concerns; and Mother had failed to demonstrate any benefit from the near continuous services provided over the life of the case. Further, supreme court precedent requires that the case be remanded for the trial court to make additional findings rather than vacated, absent Mother showing material and prejudicial error by the trial court.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Cease ReunificationTopic:
Findings of Fact