Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA06-93 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 November 2006 IN THE MATTER OF: B.D.C., Minor Child. Moore County No. 04 J 131 Appeal by Respondent from order entered 9 March 2005 by Judge Scott Etheridge in District Court, Moore County. Court of Appeals 10 October 2006. Staton, Doster, Post & Silverman, by Jonathan Silverman, for Petitioner-Appellee. Robert T. Newman, Sr. for Respondent-Appellant. McGEE, Judge. Aubrey Lynn Cheek (Petitioner) is the biological mother of B.D.C., a minor child. Petitioner filed a petition to terminate Heard in the

the parental rights of Adrian Lawrence Lee (Respondent) to B.D.C. on 1 November 2004. Petitioner alleged that Respondent is the

biological father of B.D.C., that B.D.C. had been born out of wedlock, and that B.D.C. had never been legitimated by Respondent. Petitioner alleged she has had continuous custody of B.D.C. since the child's birth, and that she has had custody of B.D.C. with Respondent's consent since the child was six months old.

-2Petitioner further alleged Respondent "has not provided substantial financial support or consistent care with respect to [B.D.C.] and [Petitioner]." Respondent did not file an answer or any responsive pleadings. The petition was first scheduled for hearing on 13 December 2004 but was continued until 19 January 2005. Respondent did not appear on 19 January 2005, and Respondent's counsel moved to continue. The trial court continued the hearing until 23 February 2005. Respondent's counsel again moved to continue the hearing on 23 February 2005, arguing as follows: [Respondent] has been out of state working. The correspondence caught up with him. I tried numerous times to call; I was unsuccessful. [Respondent] did call my office, Your Honor, too, and I never had an opportunity to speak to him; it's the first time today. [Respondent] would like to contest the termination. I haven't had time to adequately . . . prepare, Your Honor, and that would be my motion. The trial court denied Respondent's motion to continue but recessed court to allow Respondent to consult with his counsel. Robert Alley was appointed as guardian ad litem (the GAL) for B.D.C. The GAL testified that he met with Petitioner and

Petitioner's family but that he had not spoken with Respondent "due to [Respondent's] lack of contact through his attorney[.]" The GAL testified "that it would be in the best interest [of B.D.C.] to terminate the parental rights [of Respondent]." The trial court entered an order terminating Respondent's parental rights on 9 March 2005. In the adjudication portion of

the order, the trial court concluded

-3[t]hat pursuant to N.C.G.S.

Download 06-93-5.pdf

South Carolina Law