IN THE MATTER OF:
R.D.Q. Stanly County
No. 03 JA 61
Jacqueline P. DeSantis, for petitioner-appellee Stanly County
Department of Social Services.
Vita A. Pastorini, for Guardian ad Litem.
Janna D. Allison, for respondent-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Respondent appeals from the trial court's order adjudicating
her minor daughter R.D.Q. a neglected juvenile and placing R.D.Q.
with respondent's parents. For the reasons stated below, we
reverse and remand.
The Stanly County Department of Social Services (DSS) has been
involved with respondent and R.D.Q. since April 2002 when DSS
received a report of respondent's mentally unstable behaviors after
giving birth to R.D.Q. Respondent and R.D.Q were allowed to leave
the hospital upon written confirmation that respondent and R.D.Q.
would receive constant supervision by R.D.Q's maternalgrandparents. DSS substantiated neglect of R.D.Q. in June 2002 and
subsequently entered into a case plan with respondent and L.Q., the
father of R.D.Q. DSS filed a juvenile petition on 28 May 2003,
alleging that R.D.Q. was an abused and neglected juvenile. The
petition alleged that respondent had squeezed and shaken R.D.Q.
while trying to force-feed her, and that respondent kicked her
mother when the maternal grandfather physically removed R.D.Q. from
respondent's care. DSS took nonsecure custody of R.D.Q.
After holding a hearing on 30 October 2003, the trial court
adjudicated R.D.Q. neglected and ordered custody to remain with DSS
with placement in the home of R.D.Q.'s maternal grandparents. The
trial court also ordered respondent to comply with a Family
Services Plan, complete anger management classes, and complete a
full psychological evaluation. The trial court conducted review
hearings in January and April 2004, and subsequently placed R.D.Q.
with respondent and L.Q. on a trial basis in July 2004. In October
2004, the trial court found that the conditions that led to the
placement of R.D.Q. with DSS had been rectified, granted legal and
physical custody of R.D.Q. to respondent and L.Q., and relieved DSS
of further involvement. Respondent and L.Q. separated in 2005, and
respondent and R.D.Q. moved into the home of the maternal
grandparents.
On 31 October 2006 DSS filed a second juvenile petition
alleging that R.D.Q. was neglected and dependent. The petition
alleged that respondent had stopped taking her medication for her
mental health conditions, that respondent physically attacked a DSSsocial worker and a hospital social worker following the birth of
her second child, that respondent was involuntarily committed to
the psychiatric unit of the hospital, and that respondent told her
parents she would “disappear” with R.D.Q. The petition also
alleged that L.Q. was living with his mother in Cleveland, North
Carolina, and visited R.D.Q. every few months. The trial court
entered an order giving DSS nonsecure custody of R.D.Q., with
placement in the home of the maternal grandparents. The trial
court subsequently continued nonsecure custody.
On 15 March 2007, respondent signed a Memorandum of
Judgment/Order in which she stipulated to neglect. The Memorandum
of Judgment/Order further provided that the parties requested an
immediate disposition hearing. R.D.Q.'s father, L.Q., also signed
the Memorandum of Judgment/Order. Based upon the Memorandum of
Judgment/Order, the trial court adjudicated R.D.Q. a neglected
juvenile and immediately proceeded with the dispositional hearing.
Respondent and L.Q. testified at the hearing. The same day, the
trial court signed a Supplemental Custody Order granting legal
custody of R.D.Q. to her maternal grandparents and thereafter
entered an Adjudication Hearing and Disposition Hearing Order. In
its adjudication and disposition order, the trial court made the
following pertinent findings of fact:
7. That the Juvenile is nearly five years
old, and has spent the vast majority of her
life in the home of her maternal grandparents
. . . , and under their care and supervision.
That the home of [the maternal grandparents]
is a Court approved and safe home for the
Juvenile and that she has been provided withproper care and supervision while in their
home, custody and care.
8. That the last custody order of this Court
concerning the Juvenile returned custody of
the Juvenile to her parents. That within two
months of this Court's returning of custody of
the Juvenile to her parents, they requested
the maternal grandparents to come and take the
Juvenile into their home and care for her,
while they continued to reside together in a
different home. That the Juvenile's maternal
grandparents assumed custody of the Juvenile,
and since that time the Juvenile has mainly
lived in her maternal grandparent[s'] home.
. . .
10. That the Juvenile's mother resides in her
parent[s'] home with the Juvenile and has done
so for a significant period of time. That the
Juvenile's mother has no intent to move from
her parent's home and her parents have
expressed no intent for her not to continue to
reside with them. That the normal pattern of
the Juvenile's maternal grandparent[s'] home
is that one of the grandparents is in the home
at all times.
. . .
12. That the Juvenile's mother has a long
standing mental health condition which
requires daily medication for her continued
mental stability. That during her current
residency with her parents, the Juvenile's
mother would on certain days fail to take this
medication, despite the prompting of her
parents, and become irritated, angry
aggressive and failed to properly care for and
supervise the Juvenile. That during those
times the Juvenile's maternal grandparents
would care for and supervise the Juvenile to
the extent the Juvenile's mother would allow
them.
. . .
14. That the Juvenile's return to the home of
either of her parents is contrary to her
health, safety, welfare and best interests.
15. That the Juvenile[']s Permanent Plan is
custody to a relative, [maternal
grandparents]. That this is the best plan of
care to achieve a safe, permanent home for the
Juvenile within a reasonable period of time,
and that the Court's immediate custodial
placement of the Juvenile [in] her maternal
grandparent[s'] home will achieve the
permanent plan for the Juvenile.
16. That it is in the best interests of the
Juvenile that she be placed in the immediate
custody of her maternal grandparents . . . ,
with this custodial placement giving the
Juvenile an immediate safe and permanent home.
That for at least a one (1) year period of
time the Juvenile has resided in the home of
her maternal grandparents. That the
Juvenile's custodial placement with her
maternal grandparents will not change the
current established custodial pattern of the
Juvenile and the Juvenile's mother's
residency, or of the Juvenile's mother's
ability to assist with the care and
supervision of the Juvenile. That due to this
fact, this Court finds no reason to delay the
Juvenile's custodial placement with her
maternal grandparents or the permanency of the
Juvenile in their home.
. . .
18. That due to this Court's custodial
placement of the Juvenile in her maternal
grandparent[s'] home, the Juvenile is no
longer in need of services from the Department
or her Guardian ad Litem, that their
involvement would serve no further useful
purpose, and it is in this Juvenile's bests
interests that the Department and her Guardian
ad Litem be relieved of further efforts in
this matter.
Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that it was
in the best interest of R.D.Q. to place her in the custody of her
maternal grandparents, with whom respondent resided. The trial
court relieved DSS and the Guardian ad Litem of further efforts and
ceased its jurisdiction of the matter. Respondent appeals. Respondent argues that the trial court erred by ceasing its
jurisdiction, relieving DSS of its involvement, and entering a
permanent plan for R.D.Q. in the disposition order. We agree.
N.C.G.S. § 7B-905(c) states that “[a]ny dispositional order
shall comply with the requirements of G.S. 7B-507.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-905(c) (2005). N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(c) provides:
At any hearing at which the court finds that
reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for
the juvenile's placement are not required or
shall cease, the court shall direct that a
permanency planning hearing as required by
G.S. 7B-907 be held within 30 calendar days
after the date of the hearing and, if
practicable, shall set the date and time for
the permanency planning hearing.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507(c) (2005). N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(a) states:
In any case where custody is removed from a
parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker, the
judge shall conduct a review hearing
designated as a permanency planning hearing
within 12 months after the date of the initial
order removing custody, and the hearing may be
combined, if appropriate, with a review
hearing required by G.S. 7B-906.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907(a) (2005).
Further, “[t]he purpose of the permanency planning hearing
shall be to develop a plan to achieve a safe, permanent home for
the juvenile within a reasonable period of time.” Id. This Court
has held that “. . . N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-507 and 907 do not
permit the trial court to enter a permanent plan for a juvenile
during disposition[.]” In re D.C., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 644
S.E.2d 640, 646-47 (2007). In In re D.C. the trial court
adjudicated D.C. neglected, entered a disposition ceasing
reunification efforts, and appointed permanent legal guardians. Id. at ____, 644 S.E.2d at 642. This Court held that the
respondent mother did not have the statutorily required notice that
the trial court would consider a permanent plan for D.C., and
therefore remanded the matter for a permanency planning hearing and
entry of a permanency planning order containing findings as
required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907. Id. at ____, 644 S.E.2d at
646-47.
Here, the trial court relieved DSS and the Guardian ad Litem
of further efforts and ceased its jurisdiction. The trial court
also entered a permanent plan for R.D.Q. when it made the following
findings:
15. That the Juvenile[']s Permanent Plan is
custody to a relative, [maternal
grandparents]. That this is the best plan of
care to achieve a safe, permanent home for the
Juvenile within a reasonable period of time,
and that the Court's immediate custodial
placement of the Juvenile [in] her maternal
grandparent[s'] home will achieve the
permanent plan for the Juvenile.
16. That it is in the best interests of the
Juvenile that she be placed in the immediate
custody of her maternal grandparents . . . ,
with this custodial placement giving the
Juvenile an immediate safe and permanent home.
That for at least a one (1) year period of
time the Juvenile has resided in the home of
her maternal grandparents. That the
Juvenile's custodial placement with her
maternal grandparents will not change the
current established custodial pattern of the
Juvenile and the Juvenile's mother's
residency, or of the Juvenile's mother's
ability to assist with the care and
supervision of the Juvenile. That due to this
fact, this Court finds no reason to delay the
Juvenile's custodial placement with her
maternal grandparents or the permanency of the
Juvenile in their home.
. . .
18. That due to this Court's custodial
placement of the Juvenile in her maternal
grandparent[s'] home, the Juvenile is no
longer in need of services from the Department
or her Guardian ad Litem, that their
involvement would serve no further useful
purpose, and it is in this Juvenile's best
interests that the Department and her Guardian
ad Litem be relieved of further efforts in
this matter.
Like the respondent in In re D.C., respondent did not have the
statutorily required notice that the trial court's order entered
after the dispositional hearing would be permanent. Accordingly,
we remand for a permanency planning hearing and entry of an order
containing all findings of fact in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 7B-
907.
Reversed and remanded.
Judges MCCULLOUGH and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***