No brief filed for petitioner-appellee.
David A. Perez for respondent-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Respondent-father S.L.R.
(See footnote 1)
appeals from a custody review order
transferring legal custody of the minor child, J.Z.S., from the
Wilkes County Department of Social Services (WCDSS) to the child's
maternal great-grandmother, M.P.
On 15 February 2006, when J.Z.S. was approximately twenty-
three months old, the Wilkes County Department of Social Services
(WCDSS) filed a petition alleging that he was a dependent juvenile
in that he lacked a “parent, guardian, or custodian responsible for
[his] care or supervision.” The petition alleged that respondent-
mother, C.M.S., had absconded from probation and ceased contact
with M.P. after leaving Wilkes County to attend a court date in
Charlotte, North Carolina on 3 January 2006. It further allegedthat respondent-mother was subject to outstanding arrest warrants
for a felony charge and for violating her probation.
On 30 April 2006, the district court entered an adjudication
of dependency and ordered WCDSS to retain legal and physical
custody of J.Z.S. The court found that respondent-mother had
abandoned J.Z.S. and that respondent-father agreed to the
adjudication of dependency, having “had little contact” with his
son except for a two and one-half month period in which the child
was left in his care by respondent-mother. In response to
respondent-father's request “that a home study be done with the
view toward placing J[.Z.S.] with him[,]” the court ordered WCDSS
to obtain a home study from the Mecklenburg County Department of
Social Services (MCDSS). The court authorized WCDSS to continue
J.Z.S.'s placement with M.P., noting that he had lived with his
great-grandmother for eighteen months of his life and “was doing
well in this placement.” The court awarded visitation to
respondent-father “under such terms and conditions as directed by
[WCDSS].”
The court held a custody review hearing on 10 July 2006,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906, and received into evidence
the WCDSS court summary and the home study on respondent-father
prepared by MCDSS. WCDSS Social Worker Tameika Hayes advised the
court that J.Z.S. had lived with M.P. “pretty much all of his life”
and was doing “really well” in her care. Respondent-father's
visitations with the child had gone well; and MCDSS had approved
his home as a placement for J.Z.S. without conditions. Respondent-father was paying monthly child support but had not provided M.P.
with any additional clothing or items for the child. Based on her
investigation, Hayes believed that both M.P. and respondent-father
would be “appropriate caretakers” for the child and found nothing
to suggest “that one would care-take any better than the other.”
Hayes recommended that “custody be given to [M.P.], with the father
having visitation,” in order “to maintain the status quo that's
been in place for the past couple of months.” She averred that any
transfer of J.Z.S. from M.P. to his father would need to be
gradual, given the length of time the child had lived with his
great-grandmother. Upon further questioning, Hayes clarified that
WCDSS's “recommendation is that [respondent-father]'s visitation be
gradually increased in hopes of transitioning [the child] out of
[M.P.]'s home” into the home of respondent-father.
M.P. testified that WCDSS placed J.Z.S. in her home from May
of 2004 until June of 2005. After WCDSS returned the child to
respondent-mother, “[h]e went with his mom and dad to Charlotte.”
Respondent-mother left J.Z.S. in respondent-father's care for two
months. When M.P. learned that the child was living with his
father, she asked respondent-mother to retrieve the child.
Respondent-mother returned the child to M.P. in October of 2005.
Between October 2005 and WCDSS's filing of the dependency petition
in February of 2006, the child had stayed with respondent-father
during the week of Christmas and for “a couple” of weekends. Since
WCDSS's involvement, respondent-father was visiting J.Z.S. inM.P.'s home for three or four hours on Saturdays. The child
“knows who his dad is” and “interacts with him just fine.”
Respondent-father testified that he was a lifelong resident of
Charlotte, North Carolina and owned a house with a bedroom, bed,
and crib for J.Z.S. He had retired from the Charlotte Observer
after twenty years as a warehouse supervisor and was currently
employed at the Building Center managing its recycling program. He
had two adult daughters who lived “[w]ithin fifteen minutes” of his
home in Charlotte, and five grandchildren. Respondent-mother and
J.Z.S. came to live with respondent-father in June of 2005. After
respondent-mother moved out of his home in August 2005, he cared
for J.Z.S. until 21 October 2005. He allowed respondent-mother to
take J.Z.S. in October 2005, because he believed he “didn't have a
legal right to tell her no.” While he was no longer in a
relationship with respondent-mother, respondent-father admitted
providing her with cocaine while she was pregnant with J.Z.S. He
denied any current involvement with drugs or alcohol and submitted
a negative drug screen after the review hearing. He had prepared
his home for J.Z.S. in accordance with MCDSS's instructions by
child-proofing his cabinets and electrical outlets.
In its order entered 26 July 2006, the district court
incorporated by reference the home study prepared by MCDSS and the
court summary submitted by WCDSS. After addressing respondent-
father's employment, income, and housing, the court entered the
following findings of fact:
5. The father lives in Charlotte, North
Carolina, and was born in 1946. He wasintroduced to the mother by one of her
friends. The father admits that in the past,
he provided the mother with cocaine, although
he states that he has not used the drugs.
. . .
8. . . . [T]he child spent approximately two
months living with his father. The child has
otherwise lived with his maternal great
grandmother, M[.P.]
9. . . . [T]he father had provided good care
for the child during the two months that the
child resided with the father. The father has
no prior criminal convictions. The father has
two daughters, age 39 and 37, and has
grandchildren. Court inquired of the father
whether he would be willing to submit to a
drug screen following the completion of the
hearing in this matter. The father agreed and
was drug tested. The results of the test were
negative.
10. The maternal great-grandmother of the
child, M[.P.], is 66 years old. She is
retired, and lives in Wilkes County. She is
widowed and lives with the child alone in her
home. She receives Social Security
retirement and child support. There was no
evidence of any drug use or any problems
present in the grandmother's home. There is
no evidence other than that the great
grandmother has provided good care for the
minor child. Although she has diabetes, she
has good control of her condition. She
otherwise feels fine, and has no other health
concerns.
11. The father has had visitation with the
minor child in the home of the maternal great-
grandmother. The great-grandmother testified
that these visits have gone well, and the
father has been appropriate during these
visits.
Based on these facts, the court found and concluded that the best
interest of J.Z.S. would be served by granting legal and physical
custody to M.P., with respondent-father enjoying “reasonablevisitation with the child.” The court ordered WCDSS to assist in
implementing a visitation schedule providing respondent-father with
(1) one overnight visit per week for four weeks, (2) two overnight
visits per week for the next four weeks, and (3) bi-weekly weekend
visitations thereafter. The court awarded respondent-father
additional visitation with J.Z.S. “during Christmas and during
summers at such times and places as [he] and [M.P.] are able to
agree.” Finally, the court ordered WCDSS to report to the court
any “problems during the father's visitation[,]” whereupon “a
temporary order may be issued to address the same.” Respondent-
father appealed from the order changing legal custody of J.Z.S.,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(a)(4).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***