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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA01-753 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 March 2002 IN THE MATTER OF: JKH, DWH, BTRH, Minor Children Buncombe County Nos. 00 J 1, 2, 3

Appeal by respondent-father from judgment entered 8 August 2000 by Judge Rebecca B. Knight in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 January 2002.

No brief filed by petitioner-appellee Department of Social Services. Judy Rudolph, Attorney appellee Jack Hoglan. Advocate, for

Buncombe ad

County litem-

guardian

Michael E. Casterline for respondent-appellant. WALKER, Judge. JKH, DWH, and BTRH are the minor children of respondent-father (father) and respondent-mother (mother). Buncombe County Department of Social On 17 October 1997, the Services (DSS) filed a

juvenile petition alleging the minor children were neglected. After a hearing on 2 February 1998, the district court adjudicated the children as neglected "in that they did not receive the proper care and supervision from their parents and lived in an environment injurious to their welfare due to the domestic violence in the home and the substance abuse of the father."

-2The trial court ordered custody to remain with the mother with DSS providing protective supervision and all visits between the children and their father were to be supervised at DSS. It also

ordered the father to set up child support payments through the Buncombe County IV-D Agency and to "obtain a psychological

evaluation and a substance abuse assessment and [to] follow all recommendations of the evaluation and the assessment." The trial

court also ordered the children placed in counseling for as long as the counselor recommended. At a review hearing on 29 April 1998, the trial court noted that the father had failed to establish child support for the children or to obtain the previously ordered psychological

evaluation.

The trial court again ordered the father to comply At a review hearing on 18 August 1998,

with these requirements.

the trial court found "[t]hat [the father] has not had any contact with the minor children nor has he followed through with the previous orders of the Court for child support and a substance abuse evaluation." On 30 September 1998, DSS filed petitions alleging sexual abuse of the minor children by the father and the children were taken into custody by the DSS where they have remained. After DSS

presented evidence at the hearing, the father denied the charges of sexual abuse but indicated to the trial court that he did not contest the matter. The trial court found "that based on the

evidence already presented by the Department that the evidence supports, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father has

-3sexually abused his children." The trial court further adjudicated the children as abused and ordered their custody to remain with DSS. The father was ordered to have a sex offender specific

evaluation by a psychologist approved by the social worker, to fully comply with prior orders of the court including obtaining a psychological evaluation and immediately contacting the IV-D Agency for child support payments, and not to visit the children until approved by the children's psychological care providers. On 7 July 1999, the trial court held a Permanency Planning and Review hearing. following in part: 8. That [the father] has an outstanding Order for Arrest for nonsupport. [The father] informed the court that he has paid $200.00 in child support. 9. That there has been no significant progress by either parent towards reunification of the minor children in either of their homes; therefore, custody of the minor children needs to remain with the Buncombe County Department of Social Services with placement in the discretion of the Department. . . . 11. That the Buncombe County Department of Social Services made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the minor children from the home but removal was necessary to protect the safety and health of the children; and, the Buncombe County Department of Social Services has made reasonable efforts to return the children to the home. 12. That it is in the best interest of the minor children that their custody remains with the Buncombe County Department of Social Services with placement in the discretion of the Department. On 26 July 1999, the trial court found the

-413. That it is in the best interest of the minor children that any contact with their father be first approved by the children's therapists on their terms and that the therapists be provided a copy of the Sex Offender Specific Evaluation on [the father]. After another Permanency Planning and Review hearing on 23 November 1999, the trial court concluded in part the following: 3. That it is in the best interest of the minor children that the plan in this case should be change[d] from reunification to termination of parental rights due to the fact that this family has been involved with the Buncombe County Department of Social Services for two years. The Buncombe County Department of Social Services has made every possible effort to reunite this family, but the parents will not comply with Court orders and work towards reunification with the minor children. There are no appropriate relative placements available for the minor children. On 23 December 1999, DSS filed petitions for termination of parental rights. On 8 August 2000, after having heard evidence

over several days of hearings, the trial court concluded the following in part: 4. That grounds exist for termination of parental rights of the Respondent Father, [ ] as follows: a. The Respondent Father has neglected each of the minor children and there is a high probability that each minor child would continue to be neglected if returned to the Respondent Father's physical and/or legal custody based upon the evidence of changed and unchanged circumstances since DSS initially obtained legal custody on September 30, 1998. b. The Respondent Father has willfully left the minor children in foster care for more than twelve months without showing any reasonable progress under the circumstances within the twelve months to correct the

-5conditions which led to the removal of the children. c. The Respondent Father has failed, for a continuous period of six months next preceding the filing of the petitions, to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juvenile although physically and financially able to do so. The trial court then ordered that it was in the best interest of the children for the parental rights of the mother and father to be terminated. Only the father appeals the termination of his

parental rights. N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 01-753-5.pdf

South Carolina Law