In re A.C., ___ N.C. App. ___ (April 1, 2026)
Held:
Vacated and Remanded
There is a dissent
in part by Tyson, J.
- Facts: In September 2024, the child at issue was adjudicated neglected. In May 2025, a permanency planning order eliminated reunification with Mother, concluded Mother waived her paramount constitutional rights as a parent, awarded custody to the child’s paternal uncle, ordered weekly visitation with Mother at a time and location at the uncle’s discretion, and terminated jurisdiction. Two days later, the district court entered a custody order to the same effect. Mother appeals the permanency planning and custody orders. One of mother’s arguments is that the trial court improperly delegated the court’s authority to determine visitation.
- Appellate precedent holds that “the award of visitation rights is a judicial function which may not be delegated to the custodial parent[.]” Sl. Op. at 17 (citation omitted). Visitation orders which partially delegate discretion have been reversed by appellate courts “where the circumstances may permit an adverse party to prejudice the visitation rights of the appellant.” Sl. Op. at 17 (citation omitted). The trial court improperly delegated its authority to determine Mother’s visitation with the child. Ordering discretion to the uncle as to the time and location of visitation “trivializes [Mother]’s visitation rights” as “misconduct could occur under the terms of the current order’s visitation scheme.” Sl. Op. at 18. Although bad faith by the custodian is perhaps unlikely, the trial court must safeguard mother’s ability to exercise her visitation. The visitation portion of the PPO is vacated and remanded.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
VisitationTopic:
Order