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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA10-654 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 December 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: D.G. Rk.G. C.G. R.G. A.G. S.H. Cumberland Nos. 09 JA 09 JA 09 JA 09 JA 09 JA 97 JA County 231 232 233 234 235 98

Appeal by respondent mother and respondent father from orders entered 31 December 2009 and 2 February 2010 by Judge Edward A. Pone in Cumberland County District Court. Appeals 27 October 2010. Cumberland County Department of Social Services, by Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee, Staff Attorney, for petitioner-appellee. Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant father. W. Michael Spivey for respondent-appellant mother. Beth A. Hall for guardian ad litem. GEER, Judge. Respondent mother and respondent father each appeal from the trial court's 31 December 2009 adjudication order and 2 February 2010 disposition order determining that all the children were neglected primarily and two were that sexually the abused. court Respondent erred in mother Heard in the Court of

contends

trial

ordering

petitioner to cease reunification efforts with her and abused its

-2discretion by failing to provide her with visitation with the children. We hold that the trial court's findings of fact support

the court's determination that reunification efforts would be futile and that aggravating circumstances existed warranting

cessation of reunification efforts.

The court found, consistent

with the evidence, that respondent mother failed to protect two daughters from sexual abuse despite being told of it, respondent mother was subjected to chronic and severe domestic violence in the presence of the children, and respondent mother was unable to separate herself and her children from respondent father despite the sexual abuse, domestic violence, and serious substance abuse. Respondent father argues only that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not place the juveniles with their paternal grandmother. We hold that the trial court acted well within its

discretion given its findings that the paternal grandmother is dominated by her son and did not intervene despite being aware of the aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm. Facts Respondent mother is the biological mother of all six of the children, D.G. ("Dennis"), Rk.G. ("Rachel"), C.G. ("Christopher"), R.G ("Rose"), A.G. ("Amanda"), and S.H. ("Sara").1 Respondent Sara's

father is the father of all of the children except Sara.

The pseudonyms "Dennis," "Rachel," "Christopher," "Rose," "Amanda," and "Sara" are used throughout this opinion to protect the minors' privacy and for ease of reading.

1

-3biological father, J.H. ("Mr. Heath"),2 does not live in North Carolina and is not a party to this appeal. On 14 August 2008, the Cumberland County Department of Social Services ("DSS") received a referral alleging that the children were dirty and had inadequate clothes to wear, that there were bugs in respondents' home, and that respondents were selling their food stamps in order to pay bills and buy drugs. The report also

alleged domestic violence had occurred between respondents that the children had witnessed. Social worker Kedria Cooper investigated

the claims and discovered that respondent mother had taken out a protective order against respondent father. Ms. Cooper referred

respondent mother for domestic violence counseling, but by 9 September 2008, respondent father had returned, and the family moved to a new address. Although Sara lived with respondents at times, she primarily lived with her maternal grandmother ("Ms. Davis") from 2005 until November 2008, when she began residing with a family acquaintance, "Ms. Smith."3 On 25 November 2008, DSS received an additional

referral reporting that respondent father had sexually abused 16year-old Sara and may also have sexually abused five-year-old Amanda. In March 2009, DSS conducted a safety assessment at respondent parents' home and recommended that respondent father leave the family home pending the result of a Child Medical Exam ("CME") on
2

"Mr. Heath" is a pseudonym. "Ms. Davis" and "Ms. Smith" are pseudonyms.

3

-4Sara and Amanda. That same night, respondent father strangled

respondent mother in front of the children. Respondent mother took the children and went to the maternal grandmother's home.

Subsequently, when Ms. Smith refused to disclose Sara's location to DSS or bring her to her CME, law enforcement officers removed Sara from Ms. Smith's home and returned her to respondent mother's care. In April 2009, DSS received information that respondent father was seeing respondent mother and the children. On 11 May 2009,

respondent mother admitted to DSS that she and the children were again living with respondent father. On 13 May 2009, DSS filed a

petition alleging that the juveniles were abused, neglected, and dependent. The petition alleged that respondent father had

sexually abused Sara when she was between the ages of 11 and 14 and that Sara had informed respondent mother of the abuse, but

respondent mother did not believe her.

The petitions also alleged

that respondent father had sexually abused Amanda and that Amanda then displayed inappropriate sexual behavior with other children. In addition to sexual abuse, the petition also alleged that acts of domestic violence occurred between respondents. The district court entered non-secure custody orders for all the children. On 21 September 2009, DSS filed a motion to amend the petition to include Amanda's specific allegations of sexual abuse. On 2

October 2009, respondent mother filed a response admitting some of the allegations in the petition, but requested that the district court dismiss the petition. On 7 October 2009, respondent father

filed a response to the petition in which he also admitted some of

-5the allegations, but requested that the district court dismiss the petition. The trial court conducted an adjudication hearing over four days from 17 November through 20 November 2009. The evidence

presented to the trial court at the adjudication hearing included testimony from Dr. Laura Gutman, who conducted the CME on Sara and Amanda; Sara and Amanda; respondent parents; the maternal

grandmother, Ms. Davis; and two social workers.

The trial court

rendered its adjudication order in open court on 11 December 2009 and filed its written order on 31 December 2009. The trial court

concluded that all six children were neglected juveniles and that Sara and Amanda were abused children in that they had been victims of sex offenses. The court dismissed the allegations of

dependency. The court conducted a separate disposition hearing on 7 January 2010. hearing. Neither of the respondent parents attended the

Although they had been at the courthouse earlier, they At that hearing, "Ms.

left together before the hearing began.

Perkins,"4 the paternal grandmother of all the children except Sara, testified that she wanted the children to be placed in her care. Ms. Perkins, however, expressed doubt about her ability to

provide adequate space for all five of the children and was conflicted about whether she believed Amanda's allegation of sexual abuse or respondent father's claim of innocence.

4

"Ms. Perkins" is a pseudonym.

-6The trial court entered its disposition order on 2 February 2010. The trial court concluded that returning the children to

either parent would be contrary to the children's best interests and that DSS should be relieved of reunification and visitation efforts with both respondent parents. The trial court continued

legal and physical custody of Sara with her father, Mr. Heath, and ordered that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in DSS custody for placement in foster care or with other court-approved caretakers. The trial court also ordered that there be no visitation between the children and respondent parents. Respondent parents each timely appealed to this Court. I Respondent mother first contends that the trial court erred by ordering DSS to cease reunification efforts with her. "This Court

reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition." C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007). In re "'An

abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.'" In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. 733, 737, 567 S.E.2d

227, 229 (2002) (quoting Chicora Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Erwin, 128 N.C. App. 101, 109, 493 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1997), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 670, 500 S.E.2d 84 (1998)).

-7N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 10-654-8.pdf

South Carolina Law