In re S.H., _ N.C. App. _ (March 18, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed

There is a dissent

in part by Collins, J.

Facts: The three children at issue were adjudicated neglected. The trial court ultimately entered a permanency planning order granting sole legal and physical custody of the children to Father. Mother was awarded secondary physical custody with visitation every other weekend and additional periods as mutually agreed to by the parties. The trial court terminated jurisdiction in the juvenile proceeding and a Chapter 50 custody order was entered to the same effect. Mother appeals, arguing the custody determination is not supported by the findings and is contrary to the children’s best interests. Mother does not challenge the trial court’s termination of the juvenile proceedings; the operative order on appeal is the permanent custody order. Summarized separately is mother’s appeal of the visitation order in the Ch. 50 order arising from the 7B-911 transfer.
Civil custody orders are reviewed to determine “whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts.” Sl. Op. at 6 (citation omitted).
G.S. 7B-911(c) provides the procedure to transfer a juvenile proceeding to a Chapter 50 civil action. Under G.S. 7B-911, the trial court must “[m]ake findings and conclusions that support the entry of a custody order in an action under Chapter 50 . . .” Sl. Op at 6. Under G.S. 7B-13.2(a), the trial court awards custody based on the best interests and welfare of the child after considering “all relevant factors including acts of domestic violence between the parties, the safety of the child, and the safety of either party from domestic violence by the other party.” Id.
The unchallenged findings are supported by competent evidence, including incorporated findings from the final permanency planning order.
The findings consider the relevant factors in making a best interest determination under G.S. 50-13.2(a) and are sufficient to support the trial court’s custody determination. Findings in the civil custody order include that the children had been in a trial home placement with Father for thirteen months and Father is meeting the children’s needs; Father (who has MS) was supported by his grandmother who the trial court found able and willing to continue supporting Father and caring for the children; the children preferred to live with Mother or return to their previous foster home until they could live with Mother; and Mother’s two older children, each of whom suffer from mental illness that require treatment and medication management, are in a trial home placement with Mother and there are concerns about Mother’s ability to manage their behavior with the three younger children in the home. The trial court found there is not a need for continued State intervention on behalf of the children, specifically found Father fit to have custody of the children, the placement was stable and that custody with Father was in the children’s best interest.