In re P.L.E., 290 N.C. App. 176 (2023)
Held:
Vacated and Remanded
- Facts: Juvenile was adjudicated neglected due to lack of proper care, supervision, or discipline and living in an environment injurious to her welfare where she was at risk for abuse based on non-accidental injuries sustained by her younger sibling while living in the family home. Mother was ordered to comply with her case, where she initially made progress but then failed to continue with that progress. At a permanency planning hearing, the court ordered a primary permanent plan of adoption with a secondary plan of guardianship. The court ceased reunification efforts and denied mother visitation with both juveniles while mother’s misdemeanor child abuse charges were pending. Later, when mother made some progress with her case plan and one of the juvenile’s therapy was suspended when the juvenile met her treatment goals, the court restored limited telephone and video contact with the juvenile. At the next permanency planning hearing, the court found the juvenile had resumed therapy based on regressive behaviors following initial video visits with mother, mother was not in full compliance with her case plan, and DSS recommended that the primary permanent plan be changed to guardianship. After hearing testimony from one of placement providers to whom guardianship was recommended and receiving an affidavit with financial information for the proposed guardians and after determining the parents acted inconsistently with their parental rights, the court changed the primary plan to guardianship, awarded guardianship and denied mother all visitation. Mother appeals the final permanency planning order.
- Permanency planning review orders are reviewed to determine “whether there is competent evidence in the record to support the findings [of fact] and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 6 (citation omitted). Any evidence that the court finds “relevant, reliable, and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition” may be considered at a permanency planning hearing. G.S. 7B-906.1(c).
- The court is required “to determine whether the proposed guardian ‘understands the legal significance of the appointment’ and ‘will have adequate resources to care appropriately for the juvenile.” Sl. Op. at 7; G.S. 7B-600(c), G.S. 7B-906.1(j). “The record must contain competent evidence demonstrating the guardian’s awareness of [their] legal obligations,” which can be satisfied by testimony of a desire to take guardianship, signing a guardianship agreement acknowledging an understanding of guardianship, and social worker testimony of a guardian’s willingness to assume legal guardianship. Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted).
- Joint guardianship requires sufficient evidence that both persons understand the legal significance of guardianship appointment.
- There was insufficient evidence that the proposed guardians jointly understood the legal significance and responsibilities of guardianship. Although the testimony of one of the proposed guardians confirmed the information in the financial portion of the affidavit was accurate, the section about the understanding of the legal significance of the appointment was not addressed by the testimony or the DSS or GAL reports. The affidavit that was entered into evidence was not signed by either proposed guardian nor notarized. No other evidence was offered to support the finding that either, let alone both, proposed guardians understood the legal significance of the guardianship appointment.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Disposition (All Stages Post-Adjudication)Topic:
Guardianship