In re D.E., ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 5, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: The child was adjudicated neglected based on Father and Mother’s substance use and domestic violence between them. At disposition custody was ordered to DSS, placement continued with the foster parents who had the child placed with them at nonsecure custody, and both parents were granted supervised visitation of two hours per week. A subsequent permanency planning order awarded primary care and guardianship to the foster parents. The trial court found visitation with Father would not be in the best interests of the child and denied Father visitation. The PPO also authorized, but did not require, the foster parents to allow Father supervised visitation. Father appeals the PPO, challenging the court’s conclusion regarding visitation as unsupported. Father also argues the trial court failed to comply with the minimum outline requirements for ordering visitation and improperly delegated the court’s authority to set visitation.
- Dispositional determinations, including visitation, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Permanency planning orders are reviewed to determine whether there is competent evidence to support the findings and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. The trial court’s determinations as to the weight of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are not subject to appellate review.
- G.S. 7B-905.1 requires an order continuing placement outside of the home to “provide for visitation that is in the best interests of the juvenile consistent with the juvenile’s health and safety, including no visitation.” Sl. Op. at 6 (emphasis in original). Appellate courts have upheld “limitations on parental visitation rights when a trial court’s findings support its conclusions that visitation would be inconsistent with the best interests of the juvenile.” Sl. Op. at 7. Findings that the parent has not made adequate progress with their case plan support a conclusion that visitation would not be in the best interests of a juvenile.
- The findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion that it is not in the child’s best interests to award Father visitation. While the court found a bond existed between the child and Father, other findings showed Father had not made progress on his case plan regarding his substance use and domestic violence, including that Father had not participated in substance use or mental health treatment; had positive drug screenings and missed or failed to cooperate with several other screenings; was terminated from the domestic violence education program due to failure to comply with their drug screening; and was charged with assault on Mother in two separate incidents. Binding findings also showed Father had not exercised visitation rights granted in the disposition order and had blocked the foster parents from communicating with him.
- An order removing parental custody or continuing placement outside of the home must “establish a visitation plan for parents unless the court finds that the parent has forfeited their right to visitation or that it is in the child’s best interest to deny visitation.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Here the trial court concluded that it was not in the child’s best interests to award Father visitation. Therefore, the trial court was not required to provide a minimum outline for the time, place, and conditions for visitation.
- If visitation is ordered, the trial court cannot delegate its authority to set a parent’s visitation rights under G.S. 7B-905.1 to a custodian. Since visitation was denied to Father, a minimum outline regarding the visits was not required. The court did authorize the foster parents/guardians to allow for supervised visitation, which is “a humane accommodation rather than an error of law.” Sl. Opp. at 14 (relying on Routten v. Routten, 374 N.C. 571, 159-60 (2020), a civil custody case). This authorization awarded Father the opportunity to improve his communication with the foster parents at their discretion. The court noted Father has the opportunity to file a motion for review of visitation in the future.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
VisitationTopic:
Order