IN THE MATTER OF: Wayne County
C.E. No. 03 J 235
E.B. Borden Parker
for petitioner-appellee.
Michael J. Reece for respondent-appellant.
GEER, Judge.
C.E., the daughter of the respondent father, was adjudicated
to be a neglected child on 2 October 2003. Respondent appeals from
an order following a permanency planning hearing in which the trial
court rejected respondent's request to allow him to relinquish his
parental rights. We affirm.
On 14 August 2003, the Wayne County Department of Social
Services ("DSS") filed a juvenile petition alleging that respondent
was physically and emotionally maltreating his daughter. Custody
was placed with the child's mother. Respondent subsequently
admitted that C.E. was a neglected juvenile, although he did not
admit to any specific allegations. Accordingly, on 30 October
2003, C.E. was adjudicated a neglected juvenile and custody was
continued with her mother.
A permanency planning hearing was held on 8 January 2004. Inits order, the trial court took note of a Court Summary from DSS
dated 30 December 2003 in which it was recommended that respondent
be allowed to relinquish his parental rights if he wished to do so.
At the hearing, however, DSS withdrew that recommendation. The
trial court allowed respondent to speak directly to the court and
he reiterated his desire to relinquish his rights, stating:
Give them what they want, remove my parental
rights. I don't think I should have to
continue paying them, you know, [c]ause I have
no say in her upbringing. . . . I have no say
in anything, so why continue. It's only
hurting me, it's only hurting her. Give them
what they want, remove my parental rights and
take their hands out of my pocket. Let us all
go and get on with our lives.
The court concluded that it was in the best interests of the
child that custody be continued with her mother and ordered that
respondent have no contact with either his daughter or her mother.
The court did not terminate respondent's parental rights. Because
the court concluded the permanent plan for C.E. had been achieved,
the court closed the case and removed it from the active calendar
of the Wayne County Juvenile Court.
Respondent's appellate
counsel has filed an Anders brief in
which he states that "after extensive review of the relevant law,
[he] is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to
support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal." He asks this
Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible
prejudicial error.
"'An attorney for a criminal defendant who believes that his
client's appeal is without merit is permitted to file what hasbecome known as an Anders brief.'" In re Harrison, 136 N.C. App.
831, 832, 526 S.E.2d 502, 502 (2000)
(quoting State v. Mayfield,
115 N.C. App. 725, 726, 446 S.E.2d 150, 152 (1994)). The
procedures and protections afforded by Anders do not, however,
extend to civil cases, including termination of parental rights
cases. Id.
Nevertheless, in the exercise of our discretion, see N.C.R.
App. P. 2, we have reviewed the record. We hold that the trial
court's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and
those findings in turn support the conclusions of law. We,
therefore, affirm the trial court's order.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and TYSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***