In re P.C.

1

IN THE MATTERS OF: P.C., L.C., A.C., K.C., S.C.

No. COA23-253

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

January 16, 2024

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 November 2023.

Appeal by Mother from order entered 30 November 2022 by Judge Scott Etheridge in Randolph County Nos. 21 JA 118-22 District Court.

Chrystal Kay for petitioner-appellee Randolph County Department of Social Service.

Parent Defender Wendy C. Sotolongo, by Assistant Parent Defender J Lee Gilliam, for respondent-appellant mother.

Poyner Spruill LLP, by Caroline P. Mackie and Andrea M. Liberatore for guardian ad litem.

MURPHY, Judge.

Although the right to parent one's own children is protected by the U.S. Constitution, a parent forfeits this right when she is unfit to care for her children or when she acts inconsistently with this protected status. The trial court properly concluded, based on findings of fact supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that Mother acted inconsistently with her protected status as a parent, and therefore, the trial court did not err by granting guardianship of the minor children to their current care providers. Although Randolph County Department of Social Services ("DSS") failed to consistently deliver the children to visitation with Mother, the trial court's conclusion that further reunification efforts would be futile is also supported by its findings of fact. Finally, we do not disturb the trial court's decision not to award Mother visitation absent an abuse of discretion.

BACKGROUND

Mother appeals from the trial court's order granting guardianship of her minor children-P.C. ("Kenna") L.C. ("Norbert"), A.C. ("Lowell"), K.C. ("Yolanda"), and S.C. ("Vance")-to their placement providers.^[1] DSS first became involved with this family on 9 June 2021, when it received a report alleging that the minor children were being improperly homeschooled.^[2] After receiving this report, DSS interviewed the minor children. During these interviews, some of the children reported that Mother had hit them with a closed fist. Specifically, the children stated that Mother had punched both Lowell and Vance, inflicting pain and bruising. At the time that DSS filed its petition, Mother had a sixth minor child, Alma, who has since reached the age of majority.^[3] During DSS's investigation, Mother admitted to DSS that Alma had been inappropriately touched by her adult half-sister, though Mother had not informed law enforcement or sought treatment for Alma after the incident.

DSS's investigation also revealed that Mother slept at her boyfriend's house, away from the children, throughout the week, only coming home on weekends; that the children's older sister, not their Mother, homeschooled them; that the children were not appropriately educated for their individual ages; that there was a history of domestic violence between Mother and Father; that Mother and Father were separated pending divorce; that Father had a sexual relationship with the same half-sister who had inappropriately touched Alma when the half-sister was 17 years old and had fathered her child; that Mother continued to allow the children to have unsupervised overnight visitation with Father, in spite of his previous relationship with a minor; and that Alma struggled with self-harm and eating disorders, but Mother insisted she did not need professional help. On 18 June 2021, DSS filed a petition to adjudicate the children as neglected and dependent, alleging that Mother and Father were unable to provide any proper and willing caregiver as placement for the children outside of the home and that the children "do not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from [Mother and Father] and live in an injurious environment." That same day, the trial court granted DSS non-secure custody of the children. The trial court scheduled a hearing on need for continued non-secure custody to occur on 21 June 2021 and continued non-secure custody in an order entered 21 July 2021. The trial court presided over further hearings, during which it continued non-secure custody.

On 12 January 2022, the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent. The trial court further ordered that "[t]he minor children shall remain in the custody of [DSS]," Mother and Father shall comply with their respective case plans, Mother and Father shall have a minimum of one hour of visitation with the children every other week, DSS "shall continue to make reasonable efforts to reunify the minor children with a parent[,]" and a permanency planning hearing shall be held on 30 March 2022.

On 10 June 2022, the trial court ordered the primary permanent plan for the children to be guardianship, with a secondary plan of reunification. In this order, the trial court made the following finding of fact:

[DSS] has made reasonable efforts to reunify the minor children with a parent and to establish safe and timely permanence for the minor children, to prevent the minor children's ongoing need for foster care placement, and to meet the needs of the minor children. Those efforts have included the following:

d. [DSS] has met with the Mother to receive updates on her case plan.

g. [DSS] updates the Mother and Father about the minor children's medical and mental health treatment. h. [DSS] facilitates in-person visitation between the minor children and the Mother.

j. [DSS] has facilitated sibling visits for the minor children.

k. [DSS] arranged for the minor children [Yolanda] and [Kenna] to be placed with their brothers in Benson, NC.

l. [DSS] has requested medical records for the minor children from primary care physicians, specialists, and dentists.

m. [DSS] conducts Permanency Planning Review Meetings every 90 days for the minor children.

n. [DSS] meets monthly with the minor children and their placement providers to receive updates.

On 17 November 2022, the trial court entered a permanency planning hearing order, in which it made the following findings:

192. The Mother has supervised visitation with the minor children, scheduled for one hour every other week, at [DSS]. The Mother's visitation is scheduled for every other Monday from 4:00-5:00pm.

193. The Mother has had 12 possible visits. She has attended 12 of the 12 visits, however the minor children have not attended visits with the Mother consistently since the last hearing. [DSS] has driven to the minor children's schools to provide transportation for the minor children to attend visitations, but the minor children have often refused to get into the van to come to visitation, stating they do not wish to see the Mother.

194. The Mother had a visitation scheduled at [DSS] . . . [that] took place on [8 June] 2022. The minor child [Kenna] was the only child who attended the visitation . . . . The Mother was appropriate during the visitation with the minor child [Kenna].

195. The Mother had another visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [13 June] 2022. The minor children [Yolanda] and [Kenna] were the only children who attended the visitation. The Mother was appropriate during the visitation and there were no concerns noted by [DSS].

196. The Mother had a visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [27 June] 2022. The minor children all refused the visit with the Mother on this date.

197. The Mother had another visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [11 July] 2022. The minor children all refused the visit with the Mother on the date.

198. The Mother had a visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [25 July] 2022. The minor children [Yolanda] and [Alma] were the only minor children who did not refuse to visit with the Mother on this date . . . .

199. The Mother had a visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [8 August] 2022. The minor children [Alma], [Yolanda], and [Lowell] were the only minor children who did not refuse to visit with the Mother . . . . During the visitation, the Mother was appropriate and there were no concerns noted in the visitation.

200. The Mother had a visitation scheduled at [DSS] on [22 August] 2022. All minor children refused to visit with the Mother . . . .

201. On [14 September] 2022, the Mother had a visit scheduled at [DSS] . . . . All minor children refused to attend the visit on this date.

202. The Mother was scheduled for an in-person visit on [19 September] 2022, [and] all minor children refused to visit with the Mother.

204. The Mother was scheduled for an in-person visitation with the minor children on [3 October] 2022. The minor child [Alma] was the only child who attended the visit with the Mother . . . .

205.The Mother was scheduled for an in-person visitation with the minor children on [17 October] 2022. The minor children all refused to visit with the Mother[,] but the Mother was present for the visit.

206. The Mother is also afforded one hour of virtual visitation, on the weeks that she does not receive in person visitation. Since the last court date, the minor children have each refused to visit with her virtually. The placement providers report that they bring the children the phone to speak with the Mother and each child states they do not wish to speak with her.

207. On [18 August] 2022, [DSS] observed the virtual contact between the minor children and the Mother. The foster father took his phone to each child, stating the Mother was on the phone and wanted to speak with them. Each child stated, "[N]o thank you."

210. [DSS] has spoken in length, in private, with each minor child about why they refuse to visit with the Mother[.]

The trial court also made findings that each...