In re: B.S., D.S.
250 N.C. App. 370
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Three minor children (J.S., D.S., B.S.) were adjudicated neglected in 2014; DHS obtained custody and later placed the children with father in Feb 2015.
- Prior permanency planning orders (2014, 2015) aimed for reunification with a parent; after placement with father, children had regular overnight visits with mother.
- On April 8, 2016, the juvenile court entered: (1) an order terminating juvenile-court jurisdiction and transferring the case to civil court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-911, (2) a civil custody order awarding father sole legal and primary physical custody and mother visitation, and (3) a permanency planning order that mirrored the civil custody order.
- Mother appealed only the permanency planning order (not the § 7B-911 transfer or the civil custody order).
- Mother argued the permanency planning order unlawfully reduced her visitation because the court failed to make findings showing a change in circumstances as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1000(a).
- The trial court invoked N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1 for the permanency planning order; the Court of Appeals treated the custody determinations as governed by § 7B-906.1 and noted the civil custody order remained in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a permanency planning order modifying visitation must satisfy § 7B-1000(a)’s change-in-circumstances findings | Mother: The court erred by reducing visitation without findings showing changed circumstances as required by § 7B-1000(a) | State/Respondent: The permanency order was entered under § 7B-906.1, not § 7B-1000, so § 7B-1000’s review-hearing findings are inapplicable | Court: § 7B-906.1 governs permanency planning orders; § 7B-1000 does not apply, so mother’s argument fails |
| Whether mother’s appeal of the permanency order is justiciable given the simultaneous civil custody order and transfer | Mother: Seeks relief from reduced visitation in the permanency order | Respondent: Mother did not appeal the transfer or the civil custody order, which resolves custody and visitation and renders the permanency-order challenge moot | Court: Because mother did not appeal the § 7B-911 transfer or the civil custody order, the civil custody order remains effective and moots the permanency-order challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrick v. Sherrick, 209 N.C. App. 166 (704 S.E.2d 314) (discusses distinctions between juvenile and civil custody jurisdiction)
- Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93 (408 S.E.2d 729) (unchallenged factual findings are binding on appeal)
- In re J.H., 780 S.E.2d 228 (addresses standard of review for permanency planning and best-interest determinations)