Appeals by respondent from an order adjudicating J.L.G.
abused, neglected and dependant entered 27 July 2004, and from an
order relieving Watauga County Department of Social Services from
its duty to pursue reunification between respondent and J.L.G.
entered 24 September 2004. Both orders were entered by Judge
William A. Leavell in Watauga County District Court. Heard in the
Court of Appeals 17 October 2005.
Eggers, Eggers, Eggers & Eggers, by Stacy C. Eggers, IV, for
Petitioner-Appellee Watauga County Department of Social
Services.
Leslie C. Rawls, for Respondent-Appellant.
STEELMAN, Judge.
J.L.G. was taken into the custody of Watauga County Department
of Social Services on 20 March 2004, after it was discovered that
she had sexual intercourse with a thirty-one year old man while
respondent-mother was in the residence. J.L.G. was fifteen years
of age at the time. Officers also found drugs and alcohol in the
residence, including in respondent's and J.L.G.'s rooms.
Respondent was charged with felony child abuse (sexual act) andcontributing to the delinquency of a minor. The thirty-one year
old man was charged with statutory rape and possession of a
schedule II substance and paraphernalia.
An adjudication hearing was conducted in June of 2004, and the
trial court entered its order adjudicating the child abused,
neglected and dependant on 27 July 2004. Included in that
adjudication order was a conclusion of law stating: “That the acts
of the respondent mother in allowing the juvenile to engage in
sexual intercourse in her presence and with her knowledge,
constitutes an aggravated circumstance as defined by N.C. Gen.
Stat. 7B-101(2).” A subsequent hearing was conducted in August of
2004, and an order relieving Department of Social Services of
continuing reunification efforts was entered on 24 September 2004.
Respondent attempts to appeal from both of these orders.
Appeals concerning adjudications of abuse, neglect and
dependency, such as in the instant case, are governed by N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-1001. See In re Padgett, 156 N.C. App. 644, 647, 577
S.E.2d 337, 340 (2003).
However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001
provides for appeal in matters concerning adjudication of neglect
and dependency only after a final order has been entered. In re
Laney, 156 N.C. App. 639, 577 S.E.2d 377 (2003). N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 7B-1001 does not authorize appeal from the adjudicatory portion
of the proceeding, even if it includes a temporary or interim
disposition. Id. In the instant case, the order from which respondent attempts
appeal clearly states that it is an adjudication order, and sets a
specific future date for a disposition hearing. Because respondent
attempts to appeal from an adjudication order, and not from a final
order of disposition following adjudication, appeal in COA05-107 is
premature and must be dismissed. Id.
In respondent's second argument in appeal COA05-240, she
contends: “The trial court committed error and abused its
discretion by concluding as law that relief of reunification
efforts is an appropriate disposition, and by relieving the
Department of reunification efforts, failing to order visitation
with Mother, and ordering the Department to pursue guardianship and
adoption for the child.” We disagree.
“Our review of a trial court's conclusions of law is limited
to whether the conclusions are supported by the findings of fact.”
In re M.J.G., 168 N.C. App. 638, 643, 608 S.E.2d 813, 816 (2005).
In the trial court's third finding of fact, which respondent does
not contest, it found: “In making the Adjudication of Abuse,
Neglect and Dependency, the court found aggravated circumstances;
to wit: the respondent mother allowing sexual acts to occur in her
home and with her knowledge between the juvenile and an individual
in his thirties.” Because respondent does not contest this finding
of fact, it is binding on appeal.
In re Beasley, 147 N.C. App. 399,
405, 555 S.E.2d 643, 647 (2001).
The trial court then concluded
that relieving Department of Social Services of reunificationefforts was appropriate. The trial court based this conclusion in
part on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(b)
states in relevant part:
In any order placing a juvenile in the custody
or placement responsibility of a county
department of social services, whether an
order for continued nonsecure custody, a
dispositional order, or a review order, the
court may direct that reasonable efforts to
eliminate the need for placement of the
juvenile shall not be required or shall cease
if the court makes written findings of fact
that:
. . . . .
(2) A court of competent jurisdiction has
determined that the parent has subjected the
child to aggravated circumstances as defined
in G.S. 7B-101[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101 defines aggravated circumstances as: “Any
circumstance attending to the commission of an act of abuse or
neglect which increases its enormity or adds to its injurious
consequences, including, but not limited to, abandonment, torture,
chronic abuse, or sexual abuse.” The trial court's third finding
of fact thus supports its conclusion of law that cessation of
reunification efforts was appropriate.
In her third assignment of error, and the heading for her
second argument, respondent contests the portions of the trial
court's order leaving visitation decisions in the discretion of
Department of Social Services, and directing Department of Social
Services to “pursue guardianship and adoption potentials.”
However, she does not argue these issues in her brief on appeal.
These issues are therefore abandoned. N.C. R. App. P., Rule28(b)(6);
Strader v. Sunstates Corp., 129 N.C. App. 562, 567-68,
500 S.E.2d 752, 755 (1998).
This argument is without merit.
In light of our holding above, we do not address respondent's
first argument in her brief.
Case 05-107 APPEAL DISMISSED.
Case 05-240 AFFIRMED.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***