IN THE MATTER OF:
Robeson County
L.M.B.L. Nos. 03 J 194-195
S.V.L.L.,
Minor Children
No brief filed by petitioner appellee.
Susan J. Hall for respondent-mother appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
The mother of two juveniles appeals from orders terminating
her parental rights.
The sole issue presented is whether the court abused its
discretion by denying her motion to continue the termination of
parental rights hearing.
The petitions to terminate parental rights were filed on 29
April 2003. The hearing on the petitions was scheduled to occur on
26 September 2003. At the call of the case for hearing,
respondent's counsel appeared and requested to continue the hearing
because respondent was not present. He expressed concern that she
may have believed that the hearing was scheduled for 26 October
2003 because he mistakenly entered that date on a letter he mailedto her. The court permitted counsel to call respondent. Counsel
reported back to the court that he did call respondent, who
indicated that she was aware of the hearing that day and that she
was not present because her father failed to bring her. The court
denied the motion to continue and proceeded to conduct the
termination of parental rights hearing.
The governing statute with regard to continuances in a
juvenile matter is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-803 (2003), which provides:
The court may, for good cause, continue
the hearing for as long as is reasonably
required to receive additional evidence,
reports, or assessments that the court has
requested, or other information needed in the
best interests of the juvenile and to allow
for a reasonable time for the parties to
conduct expeditious discovery. Otherwise,
continuances shall be granted only in
extraordinary circumstances when necessary for
the proper administration of justice or in the
best interests of the juvenile.
A motion to continue is ordinarily addressed to the discretion of
the trial judge, whose ruling will not be disturbed in the absence
of a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Beck, 346 N.C.
750, 756, 487 S.E.2d 751, 755 (1997). If the motion to continue
raises a constitutional issue, then the court's ruling involves a
question of law and is fully reviewable. State v. Jones, 342 N.C.
523, 530-31, 467 S.E.2d 12, 17 (1996).
In the case of In re Mitchell, 148 N.C. App. 483, 488, 559
S.E.2d 237, 241, reversed on other grounds, 356 N.C. 288, 570
S.E.2d 212 (2002), this Court held that the denial of a motion to
continue grounded on the mother's failure to attend the hearing dueto lack of transportation did not deny the parent her rights to due
process or to parent her children. In that case, the mother's
attorney informed the court that the mother told him the day before
the hearing that she was going to be unable to attend the hearing,
because the person who was going to transport her had a conflicting
appointment. This Court concluded that the mother's absence was
voluntary and due to her own negligence in failing to obtain
adequate transportation. We further noted that respondent-mother's
attorney had been representing her for three years in the matter,
and we saw “no possibility that respondent was unfairly surprised
or that her ability to contest the petition to terminate was
prejudiced.” Id. at 487, 599 S.E.2d at 240.
Prior orders in the case at bar show that counsel had been
representing respondent in this matter at least since 13 February
2002, more than one year in advance of the filing of the present
petitions. We can find nothing in the record to show that
respondent was unfairly surprised by any lack of notice or that her
ability to contest the petition was prejudiced by her absence. We
do not find any extraordinary circumstances to mandate the granting
of the continuance.
The orders terminating parental rights are
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***