IN THE MATTER OF: Randolph County
C.S. & C.A.S. Nos. 04 J 21-22
David A. Perez for Randolph County Department of Social
Services.
Christopher G. Daniel for Guardian ad Litem.
Terry F. Rose for respondent-appellant.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Stanley S. (“respondent”) appeals from a permanency planning
order, determining that the permanent plan for C.S. and C.A.S.
(“the minor children”) is termination of parental rights and
adoption. We dismiss respondent's appeal for failure to comply
with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Respondent is the biological father and Monica S. is the
biological mother of the minor children. On 11 February 2004, the
Randolph County Department of Social Services (“D.S.S.”) filed
juvenile petitions, alleging that the minor children were neglected
and dependent within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-101 (9),
(15) (2003). Specifically, the petitions alleged that the minor
children were neglected as a result of domestic violence betweenrespondent and Monica S. as well as drug addictions of Monica S.
The petitions further alleged that the minor children were
dependent because respondent and Monica S. were “unable to provide
for [the minor children's] care or supervision and lack[ed] an
appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” The trial court
subsequently granted D.S.S. nonsecure custody of the minor
children. On 8 April 2004, upon stipulation of the parties, the
trial court then adjudicated the minor children neglected as a
result of the substance abuse and domestic violence. Additionally,
the trial court determined it was in the best interests of the
minor children that they remain in the custody of D.S.S.
The trial court conducted review hearings of this matter on
both 1 July 2004 and 7 October 2004. At both review hearings, the
trial court determined it was in the best interests of the minor
children that they remain in the custody of D.S.S. Then, on 7
April 2005 at an initial permanency planning hearing, the trial
court ordered that “the best plan of care to achieve a safe,
permanent home for [the minor children] within a reasonable period
of time is termination of parental rights and adoption.” At that
hearing, respondent stated he was willing to undergo a drug screen.
On 11 April 2005, respondent arrived at D.S.S. with a shaved head,
so when D.S.S. requested a drug screen on 12 April 2005, they
informed respondent that body hair would be used for the hair
follicle drug screen. When respondent reported for his hair
follicle screen, he had shaven every piece of hair on his body,
including pubic hair, so D.S.S. never obtained a hair follicle teston respondent. The trial court subsequently reduced the 7 April
2005 order to writing and executed the order on 3 May 2005. From
this order, respondent appeals.
We initially address whether respondent has complied with the
mandatory North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure so as to
properly preserve his assignments of error for appellate review.
In the case sub judice, respondent failed to comply with N.C. R.
App. P. 28(b)(6) (2006), which states, in pertinent part:
. . . Each question shall be separately
stated. Immediately following each question
shall be a reference to the assignments of
error pertinent to the question, identified by
their numbers and by the pages at which they
appear in the printed record on appeal. . . .
The argument shall contain a concise statement
of the applicable standard(s) of review for
each question presented, which shall appear
either at the beginning of the discussion of
each question presented or under a separate
heading placed before the beginning of the
discussion of all the questions presented. . .
.
N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2006). Respondent failed to: 1) place
references to the assignments of error immediately following the
question presented, 2) identify his assignments of error by the
page number at which they appear in the record, and 3) include the
applicable standards of review for each question “at the beginning
of the discussion of each question presented or under a separate
heading.”
Our Supreme Court has recognized, “The North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to follow these rules
will subject an appeal to dismissal.” Viar v. North Carolina Dep't
of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (2005)(citations and quotations omitted). The rationale supporting
strict enforcement is that “the Rules of Appellate Procedure must
be strictly applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and
an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an
appellate court might rule.” Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d 361
(citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, as recently
clarified, “this Court may not review an appeal that violates the
Rules of Appellate Procedure even though such violations neither
impede our comprehension of the issues nor frustrate the appellate
process.” Munn v. North Carolina State University, __ N.C. __, __,
626 S.E.2d 270, 270 (2006), rev'g per curiam for the reasons stated
in __ N.C. App. __, __, 617 S.E.2d 335, 339 (2005) (Jackson, J.,
dissenting) (citations and quotations omitted). For the foregoing
reasons, we dismiss respondent's appeal based on his failure to
comply with the mandatory Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Munn,
supra; Viar, supra.
Dismissed.
Judges McCULLOUGH and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***