In re Q.J.P., ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 15, 2024)
Held:
Remanded
Vacated and Remanded
- Facts: Initial permanency planning for Mother’s three children, each of whom had different fathers, established permanent plans that did not include reunification with Mother. Reunification with their respective fathers was established as the secondary plan for the two older children, while the younger child’s permanent plans included adoption and guardianship. Mother filed a notice of her intent to appeal the PPOs that eliminated reunification with her. Mother then filed notices of appeal of the PPOs. DSS and the GAL for the children argue the orders as to the two older children are not appealable since reunification with the fathers were included as a secondary permanent plan.
- Matters of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.
- G.S. 7B-1002 provides that a parent who is a nonprevailing party is a proper party for appeal from an order permitted under G.S. 7B-1001. Appellate precedent holds that the right to appeal belongs to an aggrieved party and indicates “that a parent is an aggrieved party if his or her rights have been ‘directly and injuriously affected’ by a district court’s action.’ ” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted). G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5) allows for the direct appeal of a permanency planning order that eliminates reunification by either a parent who is a party and timely preserves their right and files an appeal, or a party who is a guardian or custodian with whom reunification is not a permanent plan. G.S. 7B-101(18c) defines reunification as the “[p]lacement of the juvenile in the home of either parent or placement of the juvenile in the home of a guardian or custodian from whose home the child was removed by court order.” Sl. Op. at 7-8.
- Mother’s appeal of the permanency planning orders for the two older children is proper under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5). Though reunification with their fathers was not also eliminated, the PPOs eliminated reunification with the children removed from Mother’s home as a permanent plan. Mother is a party to the proceeding and timely preserved her right to appeal and appealed the PPOs that have a direct and injurious effect on Mother. The argument that the placement of the clause “from whose home the child was removed by court order” in G.S. 7B-101(18c) suggests it explicitly applies to a guardian or custodian and not a parent, such that Mother has no right to appeal, would led to an absurd result. That statutory interpretation “would require [the court] to presume that the General Assembly intended to provide a greater right of appeal to a guardian or custodian of a child from whose home the child was removed than to a similarly situated parent.” Sl. Op. at 8 (emphasis in original). Mother’s right to appeal is consistent with one of the purposes of the Juvenile Code to balance a parent’s constitutional rights and the best interests of the child. The court did not address whether a parent who did not have physical custody of the child when the child was removed from the home of another parent, guardian or custodian would have the right of direct appeal.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AppealTopic:
Appealable Order