In re E.E., ___ N.C. App. ___ (June 4, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: In 2019, 4 siblings who were adjudicated neglected based on their parents’ substance use and inability to provide proper care and supervision for the children. Ultimately, the court ordered custody to the children’s Grandmother and her husband (Husband) at a permanency planning hearing. In 2021, a new petition was filed alleging Husband sexually abused two of the children. Those two children were adjudicated abused and neglected and the other two children were adjudicated neglected. The children remained with Grandmother and legal custody was ordered to DSS at disposition. Husband was no longer residing in the home. The disposition order was not appealed. Later, the children’s GAL motioned to remove Husband as a party to the proceeding. The court held a hearing and ordered Husband discharged and removed as a party to the proceeding over DSS objections. Husband appeals the order of removal.
- Author’s Note: An order removing a party is not an appealable order under G.S. 7B-1001. This author believes a petition for writ of certiorari was filed although the opinion does not state that.
- Whether the trial court erred in removing a party from the proceeding is a conclusion of law that is reviewed de novo. The trial court’s order is reviewed to determine “whether there is competent evidence in the record to support the findings and the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 5 (citation omitted).
- “If a guardian, custodian, or caretaker is a party, the court may discharge that person from the proceeding, making the person no longer a party, if the court finds that the person does not have legal rights that may be affected by the action and that the person’s continuation as a party is not necessary to meet the juvenile’s needs.” Sl. Op. at 4, quoting G.S. 7B-401.1(g). Custodian is defined as “[t]he person or agency that has been awarded legal custody of a juvenile by a court.” Sl. Op. at 6, quoting G.S. 7B-101(8).
- The court made the two findings required under G.S. 7B-401.1(g) which are supported by the evidence. The findings support the court’s conclusion to remove Husband as a party.
- (1) The court found Husband did not have legal rights to the children that may be affected by the proceedings, rejecting Husband’s argument that he had custodial rights to the children based on past legal custody. The adjudication and disposition orders are dispositive evidence that Husband was not a guardian, custodian, or caretaker at the time of his removal as a party. The disposition order concluded that legal custody with DSS was in the best interest of the children based on findings that included Husband’s indictment for felony charges related to his sexual abuse of the children, Husband’s sexual abuse of two of the children and their older sibling, and the court’s conclusion that the conditions that led to Husband leaving the home continued to exist.
- (2) The court found Husband’s continuation as a party was not necessary to meet the juvenile’s needs, based on findings of his prolonged sexual abuse of the two younger children and their older sibling; the resulting negative impacts of that abuse; his no longer living with Grandmother; his indictment for felony sexual assault charges and being in custody; domestic violence protection orders; and Grandmother’s award of temporary possession of the home and vehicle. Husband’s contention that Grandmother requires his financial support to maintain placement of the children is irrelevant as the children are in the legal custody of DSS, not Grandmother.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
PartiesTopic:
Removal