In re Q.J.P., _ N.C. App. _ (March 4, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Dismissed

Facts and procedural history: This is Mother’s second appeal involving her three children who were each adjudicated neglected. On the first appeal, permanency planning orders (PPO) for each of the children were vacated and remanded for failure to make required findings under G.S. 7B-906.2 when eliminating reunification with Mother. See In re Q.J.P., 296 N.C. App. 175 (2024) (Q.J.P. I). Amended PPOs were entered on remand that eliminated reunification as a permanent plan. After Q.J.P. I. and prior to entry of the amended PPOs, DSS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights (TPR) to each of the three children. Mother appeals the amended PPOs, arguing the trial court erred by eliminating reunification as a permanent plan and that the court’s conclusion that DSS made reasonable efforts towards reunification were unsupported by the evidence. DSS moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing Mother’s appeal is not ripe under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(8) until the TPR is heard and granted. Mother argues the orders are part of her previous appeal and satisfy the requirements for a direct appeal under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5). Mother alternatively petitions for a writ of certiorari.
PPOs eliminating reunification as a permanent plan are appealable under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5). “[A] parent who is a party” may directly appeal the PPO if several criteria are met, including that (1) the parent preserved the right to appeal within 30 days of entry and service of the PPO, (2) a TPR petition or motion has not been filed within 65 days of entry and service of the PPO, and (3) a notice of appeal of the PPO is filed within 30 days after the expiration of the 65-day waiting period. G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5).
DSS’s motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed. TPR petitions were filed for each child in February 2025. The amended PPOs were entered on remand for two of the children in March 2025 and for the third child in April 2025. These are new orders and not extensions of the original permanency planning orders. “[A]n appellate court’s remand for a district court to make additional findings does not change how the orders entered on remand must be appealed.” Sl. Op. at 8. Since TPR petitions were filed within 65 days of entry of each of the new PPOs, Mother cannot directly appeal under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(5). Instead, Mother must appeal the PPO and TPR order together under G.S. 7B-1001(a)(8).
Extraordinary circumstances justifying issuing a writ of certiorari “generally require[] a showing of substantial harm, considerable waste of judicial resources, or ‘wide-reaching issues of justice and liberty at stake.’ ” Sl. Op. at 9 (citations omitted). Mother’s conditional petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Mother’s appeal is delayed until the trial court hears and rules on the TPR petitions pursuant to G.S. 7B-1001(a)(8). Her notices of appeal would be properly treated as notices to preserve the right to appeal. These circumstances are not extraordinary. The court of appeals recognized G.S. 7B-1001(a)(8) requires that a TPR petition be “heard and granted” before a PPO eliminating reunification may be appealed, and “is thus silent on the right to appeal a [PPO] eliminating reunification when a TPR petition is filed within the sixty-five-day period but then denied.” Sl. Op. at 10 n.5 (emphasis in original). This scenario may require petitioning for a writ of certiorari to appeal the PPO.