In Re JNS, 704 S.E.2d 511

Background

DSS has been involved with respondent-mother since 2003; Jason was adjudicated abused and neglected in 2003 after multiple injuries.
Respondent-mother previously completed reunification with Jason in 2005 and Jason was returned to her custody.
In Sept–Oct 2009, DSS learned of domestic violence between respondent-mother and M.M.; M.M. was on probation for strangulation and violated probation by testing positive for marijuana.
A new Team Decision Making Meeting in Oct 2009 recommended M.M. move out and no contact with children; by Oct 21, 2009, DSS filed a new petition alleging all four children neglected and dependent.
Children were placed in nonsecure custody with DSS; adjudicatory hearing occurred Nov 20, 2009 with consent to adjudication; disposition hearings followed, with the disposition order entered Jan 11, 2010.
Respondent-mother timely filed notices of appeal in Jan–Feb 2010; the court ultimately treated the appeal as timely for both adjudication and disposition orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness and scope of appeal from adjudication and disposition orders	Respondent-mother argues adjudication appeal was untimely if treated separately.	Petitioner contends adjudication and disposition are conjunctive and timely when appealed within 30 days of disposition.	The appeal of both adjudication and disposition is proper and timely.
Whether the adjudication order was properly entered as a consent order	Respondent-mother contends the court must obtain explicit parental assent on the record.	Court may enter a consent adjudication when all parties are present and represented; counsel assent suffices.	Consent adjudication was properly entered; no preservation issue due to lack of objection.
Sufficiency of evidence supporting the disposition order findings	Findings relied on DSS and guardian ad litem reports are admissible, but some findings rely on non-sworn statements.	Dispositional hearing allowed use of written reports; some findings based on credible reports are permissible.	Disposition order vacated and remanded because some findings were not based on competent evidence.
Ceasing reunification efforts and 7B-507(b) findings	Dispositional order directs termination petition; implies cessation of reunification without explicit findings.	Brake requires explicit findings to cease reunification; failure to do so was error.	Remand required for explicit 7B-507(b) findings; court implied cessation of reunification without proper findings.
Authority to enter a permanent plan during disposition following adjudication	Arguments concerning whether a permanent plan could be established in disposition.	Court may enter disposition with appropriate findings; D.C. cautionary rule discussed but not controlling here.	Court affirmed consent adjudication; disposition must include proper findings on remand.

Key Cases Cited

In re A.L., 166 N.C.App. 276 (2004) (timeliness of juvenile appeal; notice must be timely)
In re O.W., 164 N.C.App. 699 (2004) (two-stage abuse/neglect process; adjudication then disposition)
In re Ivey, 156 N.C.App. 398 (2003) (trial court may rely on written reports in dispositional hearing)
In re C.M., 183 N.C.App. 207 (2007) (avoid broad incorporation; must base findings on credible sources)
In re J.S., 165 N.C.App. 509 (2004) (dispositional findings must be supported by competent evidence)
In re Brake, 347 N.C. 339 (1997) (cessation of reunification follows termination of parental rights; avoid inconsistent orders)
In re D.C., C.C., 183 N.C.App. 344 (2007) (limits on permanent plans during disposition; context cited)