IN THE MATTER OF: Cumberland County
S.E. and E.E. Nos. 01 J 468, 469
David L. Kennedy for Cumberland County Department of Social
Services, petitioner appellee.
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, by
J. Mitchell Armbruster, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Terry F. Rose for respondent-appellant.
TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.
Respondent-mother J.E. appeals from a permanency planning
order entered by the district court, which continued legal custody
of minor children S.E. and E.E. with the Cumberland County
Department of Social Services (CCDSS) but placed physical custody
of the children with respondent-father C.E.
The record before this Court reveals the following facts: On
22 August 2001, CCDSS filed a juvenile petition seeking legal
custody of the minor children on the grounds of dependency and
neglect. At the time of the petition, the minor children were
living in Fayetteville, North Carolina with respondent-mother, whompetitioner alleged was suffering from delusions, hallucinations and
paranoia. Respondent-father was residing in Minnesota. CCDSS
obtained an order of non-secure custody and placed the children in
the home of their maternal grandparents. The district court
appointed guardians ad litem for respondent-mother and for the
minor children.
Upon respondents' joint stipulation that the children were
dependent juveniles, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9) (2003), the
trial court entered an adjudication and disposition order on 5
December 2001, awarding physical and legal custody of the minor
children to CCDSS and maintaining their existing placement with the
maternal grandparents. The court awarded respondent-mother
supervised visitation with the children and ordered her to complete
a psychological evaluation and parenting assessment. Respondent-
father was awarded telephonic contact with the children and was
ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation and parenting
assessment in Minnesota and to develop a visitation plan. In light
of the stipulation of dependency, CCDSS voluntarily dismissed the
neglect allegation against respondent-mother.
The district court held a permanency planning hearing on 3 and
4 September 2002. The court considered, inter alia, the parenting
assessments and psychological evaluations of both respondents,
reports prepared by the CCDSS social worker and the children's
guardian ad litem, respondent-mother's medical records, the
children's schoolwork, and the testimony of respondents, the
children's guardian ad litem, the maternal grandmother, and severalsocial workers including the minor children's CCDSS social worker,
respondent-mother's mental health case manager, and the manager of
respondent-mother's group home. The court also interviewed the
minor children in chambers.
In its permanency planning order, the district court denied a
motion by the maternal grandparents to intervene, finding they had
“not shown an abrogation of the protected status of the parent's in
order to place themselves in a category to be considered as
custodians of the minor children.” The court then made the
following findings of fact regarding respondents:
7. [Respondent-]mother has mental health
disorders and has a history of medical non-
compliance.
8. She was banned from her son's school due
to her behaviors.
9. She suffers from delusions, hallucinations
and has made false accusations about her
father.
10. She is currently prescribed Zoloft and
Serapil.
. . . .
15. The maternal grandparent's cannot
[e]nsure that [respondent-]mother will
continue to take her medication regularly.
16. [Respondent-]mother is unable to parent
the minor children due to her mental health
condition.
17. The Court has entered several orders for
[respondent-]mother to cooperate with
treatment, but she has failed to comply. Her
condition cannot be alleviated.
18. The minors cannot be returned to
[respondent-]mother pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-907 in the near future.
. . . .
5. That both of [respondent-]father's Home
Studies have been completed by Hennenpin
County and are approved with some
recommendations.
6. He completed [a] parenting assessment with
no reported concerns.
. . . .
11.[Respondent-]father is employed in
Minnesota and is currently paying child
support.
12.[Respondent-]father has undergone a
psychological evaluation and was given no
diagnosis.
13. [Respondent-]father has secured
appropriate school and day care arrangements
for the children.
. . . .
19. [Respondent-]father has complied with all
orders entered and requests made of him.
20. [Respondent-]father has made several
visits with the minor children here in North
Carolina.
21. [Respondent-]father would be a fit and
proper person to exercise custody of the
minors.
The court concluded that the best interests of the children called
for their placement with respondent-father in Minnesota.
Mindful of the need for “a transition period” for the
children, the court ordered that legal custody remain with CCDSS,
that physical custody be placed with respondent-father, and that
respondent-father arrange services for the children in Minnesota,
as follows:
3. That within 72 hours of his return toMinnesota, [respondent-]father shall contact
appropriate mental health officials, in
conjunction with Cumberland County Dept. of
Mental Health officials, to obtain counseling
for the minor children immediately.
4. [Respondent-]father shall immediately
enroll [E.E.] in school and make every effort
to have his school records forwarded.
5. [Respondent-]father shall make day care
arrangements for [S.E.].
6. The minor children shall be allowed to
have telephone contact with their mother and
grandparent[]s as often as they desire.
The court further asked for a report on visitation from the
children's Minnesota therapist within sixty days and continued the
matter until further review on 28 October 2002. Respondent-mother
filed timely notice of appeal.
In her sole assignment of error, respondent-mother challenges
the court's refusal to allow any evidence of the contents of a
report prepared by a Mr. Collins, a counselor who worked with the
minor children. She avers the court was obliged under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-907(b) to consider any evidence offered at the hearing
which bore upon the appropriate custody arrangement for the minor
children. Absent a finding by the court that Collins' report was
“redundant, cumulative, incompetent or irrelevant,” respondent-
mother contends the court's ruling constituted reversible error.
Having carefully reviewed the hearing transcript and the
record materials, we find respondent-mother failed to preserve this
issue for appellate review. She made no offer or proof at the
hearing regarding the contents of Collins' report; nor are the
contents of the report made apparent by the context of the hearing. See State v. Williams, 355 N.C. 501, 556, 565 S.E.2d 609, 641-42
(2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1125, 154 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2003).
Other than a remark by the children's maternal grandmother that
Collins did not believe the children should move to Minnesota,
there was no proffer at the hearing of the contents of Collins'
report, the nature of his findings and recommendations, or the
basis therefor. Moreover, inasmuch as respondent-mother did not
tender the report into evidence at the hearing and did not subpoena
or attempt to call Collins as a witness, any testimony about the
contents of his report would have been inadmissible hearsay. See
generally State v. Van Landingham, 283 N.C. 589, 602-603, 197
S.E.2d 539, 548 (1973); Potts v. Howser, 274 N.C. 49, 57, 161
S.E.2d 737, 743-44 (1968); N.C.R. Evid. 801, 802. Finally,
respondent-mother has not included Collins' report in the record on
appeal. See Tucker v. Telephone Co., 50 N.C. App. 112, 118, 272
S.E.2d 911, 915 (1980) (noting the appellant's duty to prepare the
record on appeal properly). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's order.
Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***