IN THE MATTER OF: Mecklenburg County
M.B. No. 03 J 781
Youth & Family Services, by Alan B. Edmonds, for petitioner-
Robert W. Ewing, for respondent-appellant.
Alexandra S. Gruber, for Guardian ad Litem.
Jeannie Brown and Matt McKay for Guardian ad Litem.
Respondent mother purports to take an appeal from a custody review order entered pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906. We dismiss the appeal.
This matter came on for review of the minor child's placement in foster care on 31 August 2004. A review order was entered on the same date continuing the child's placement in foster care and suspending reasonable efforts to reunify. Respondent appealed, and now makes numerous arguments related to the sufficiency of the review order.
Respondent's appeal is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes in effect 31 August 2004. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(2003), governing the right to appeal any final order of the court in a juvenile matter[,] defined a final order to include:
(1) Any order finding absence of
(2) Any order which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which appeal might be taken;
(3) Any order of disposition after an adjudication that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent; or
(4) Any order modifying custodial rights.
This Court, in In re B.N.H., 170 N.C. App. 157, 160, 611 S.E.2d 888, 890, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632, 615 S.E.2d 865 (2005), held that the term order of disposition in Subsection 3 of G.S. § 7B-1001 means the order of disposition that is entered after an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905 (2003). Under Subsection 4, only orders that modify custodial rights are final orders for purposes of appeal under the statute.
The current order on appeal does not meet the criteria set forth in Subsections 1 or 2 of G.S. § 7B-1001. Moreover, our opinion in In re BNH, supra, controls our conclusion that the present order does not meet the criterion under Subsection 3. And, because the record on appeal does not demonstrate that respondent's custodial rights were modified, it does not meet the criterion set forth in Subsection 4. Consequently, the issues concerning the review order on appeal are not before us.
With respect to respondent's repeated argument that the trial court failed to hold a permanency planning hearing as of the dateof the review hearing, we observe that the transcript reveals that the trial court merely decided not to hold such a hearing in conjunction with the review hearing that resulted in this appeal. Respondent is correct in her observation that the current order on appeal does not comply with the requirements concerning permanency planning because it is not such an order.
The present appeal must be
Judges McCULLOUGH and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***