In The Matters Of: J.K. and L.K. ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA14-381
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 October 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: Lee County
Nos. 13 JA 15 and 16
J.K. and L.K.
Appeal by Lee County Department of Social Services and
father from order entered 23 December 2013 by Judge Mary H.
Wells in Lee County District Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 30 September 2014.
Tron D. Faulk for Lee County Department of Social Services,
petitioner-appellant.
Mobley Law Office, PA, by Marie H. Mobley for guardian ad
litem, appellee.
Assistant Appellate Defender J. Lee Gilliam for father,
respondent-appellant.
Ewing Law Firm, PC, by Robert W. Ewing for mother,
respondent-appellee.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Where the trial court made implicit findings of fact that
complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1, it did not err. Where
custody was transferred from DSS to a non-parent relative,
-2-
father’s constitutionally protected status as a natural parent
was not implicated. Because a judge at a permanency planning
and review hearing is tasked with a different determination than
that of the judge at a prior adjudication hearing, the trial
court was not bound by prior findings of fact from the
adjudication hearing at a subsequent permanency planning and
review hearing. Where evidence in the record supported the
trial court’s findings of fact, and these in turn supported the
trial court’s conclusions of law, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that placement with grandparents
was in the juveniles’ best interests.
I. Factual and Procedural History
J.K.’s parents married approximately six months after his
birth in 2004. The parents subsequently separated and on 21
March 2007, entered into a consent order in which they agreed
that T.K. (mother) should be awarded custody of J.K. and that
C.K. (father) should pay the sum of $700 per month as child
support to the North Carolina Child Support and Disbursement
Unit in Raleigh. The order also required father to provide
health insurance for the benefit of J.K. and to pay all of
J.K.’s uninsured health care expenses.
-3-
On 19 April 2010, mother entered into a “Voluntary Custody
and Guardianship Agreement” with J.K.’s maternal grandmother and
her husband (collectively, grandparents) in which she purported
to grant to them full custody of J.K. The agreement was signed
only by mother, the maternal grandmother and the maternal step-
grandfather.
In September 2011, mother gave birth to a second child,
L.K., whose biological father is unknown. On 25 February 2013,
Lee County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed juvenile
petitions alleging that J.K. and L.K. were neglected and
dependent juveniles. On 5 March 2013, grandparents filed
motions to intervene in the juvenile proceedings. On 18 April
2013, the trial court entered an order dismissing the motions to
intervene.
On 23 April 2013, Judge Jimmy L. Love, Jr. entered an order
adjudicating the juveniles as neglected and dependent. The
order, filed 21 May 2013, contained findings of fact that J.K.
had witnessed his mother being assaulted by his maternal
grandmother and step-grandfather while his mother was holding
L.K., that both juveniles had witnessed acts of domestic
violence between grandparents while they were residing with
grandparents, and that they both witnessed acts of domestic
-4-
violence between mother and her new husband. The court further
found that mother has “an extreme mental health and substance
abuse history.” The court ordered that DSS retain custody of
the juveniles, and allowed DSS to place J.K. with father. J.K.
began living with father on 10 May 2013.
Judge Wells conducted a permanency planning and review
hearing during the 8 October 2013 and 22 October 2013 terms of
Lee County District Court. On 23 December 2013, Judge Wells
filed an order awarding custody of both juveniles to the
maternal grandmother. The court also ordered that the plan for
J.K. continued to be reunification with father. Father and DSS
appealed. On 8 January 2014, this Court allowed the petition
for writ of supersedeas filed by DSS, staying Judge Wells’ order
of 23 December 2013 pending disposition of this appeal.
II. Standard of Review
“Appellate review of a permanency planning order is limited
to whether there is competent evidence in the record to support
the findings and the findings support the conclusions of law.”
In re J.C.S., 164 N.C. App. 96, 106, 595 S.E.2d 155, 161 (2004)
(citing In re Eckard, 148 N.C. App. 541, 544, 559 S.E.2d 233,
235, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 163, 568 S.E.2d 192-93
(2002)). “If the trial court’s findings of fact are supported
-5-
by any competent evidence, they are conclusive on appeal.” Id.
at 106-07, 595 S.E.2d at 161 (citing In re Weiler, 158 N.C. App.
473, 477, 581 S.E.2d 134, 137 (2003)). The disposition portion
of the order is examined to determine whether the court abused
its discretion in deciding what action is in the juvenile’s best
interest. In re C.W., 182 N.C. App. 214, 219, 641 S.E.2d 725,
729 (2007).
III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The trial court’s findings of fact pertinent to the issues
raised in this appeal are:
11. On April 23, 2013, the respondent
parents, DSS and GAL stipulated that the
court adjudicate the juveniles as neglected
& dependent juveniles as defined by NCGS 7B-
101(15) and NCGS 7B-101(9) in that they did
not receive proper care, supervision or
discipline and that they lived in an
environment injurious to their welfare, and
that the juveniles’ mother was unable to
provide for the juveniles’ care or
supervision and lacked an appropriate
alternative child care arrangement.
12. The stipulations of neglect and
dependency, and the allegations therein,
were made without stipulation, agreement or
consent of [grandparents].
13. [Grandparents] have not been made
parties to this action.
14. The plan at disposition on April 23,
2013 was reunification with the respondent
mother or respondent father for [J.K.] and
-6-
reunification with the mother for [L.K.].
The Court found that it was in the best
interests of [J.K.], with the consent of all
parties, to be placed with the respondent
father pending a kinship assessment. A
kinship assessment [was] conducted and
approved and the juvenile has been living
with his father since May 10, 2013. The
Court found that it was in the best
interests of [L.K.] to remain in foster care
at that time. Case plans were developed for
the respondent mother and respondent father.
. . . .
20. Prior to the filing of the Petition by
DSS, [father] acted inconsistently with his
constitutionally protected parental status
as it relates to [J.K.].
21. [Father] has been willingly and
deliberately absent from [J.K.’s] life for
the vast majority of [J.K.’s] life.
22. Prior to these proceedings, [father]
chose not to have a relationship with
[J.K.].
23. [Father] was aware of [mother’s]
inability to maintain stable housing, yet,
[father] failed to take any steps to protect
his son.
24. [Father] failed to communicate with or
inquire about [J.K.] during his absence from
[J.K.].
25. [Father] has willfully failed to visit
with [J.K.] until DSS filed the Petition.
26. [Father] surrendered his parental
rights to another biological child.
27. [Father] had the capacity and the
-7-
ability to visit with [J.K.], to inquire
about [J.K.] and to take necessary steps to
remove [J.K.] from the detrimental
environment [J.K.] suffered while in the
care of [mother].
28. [Father] had the ability and the
capacity to exercise his parental rights to
[J.K.] at all times.
29. [Father] could have made more of an
effort to maintain contact with [J.K.].
30. [Father’s] conduct was intentional
whereby he withheld his love, his presence,
his care and opportunity to display filial
affection to [J.K.].
31. [Father’s] actions were inconsistent
with any desire to maintain a relationship
with [J.K.].
32. The minor children’s interests are best
served by sustaining links with their
natural families.
33. It is in the best interests of the
minor children to live together.
34. [J.K.] and [L.K.] have a nurturing and
important relationship with each other.
35. [J.K.] and [L.K.’s] bond and
maintenance of their relationship plays an
important role in their development and
sense of identity.
36. [Grandparents] addressed the medical
and mental health needs of the children when
the children were in their care.
37. [J.K.’s] ticks [sic] were greatly
diminished and even disappeared while in the
custody of [grandparents].
-8-
38. [J.K.] is always very excited to see
his sister, [L.K.].
39. [J.K.] assumed a parental role in
caring for [L.K.].
40. [J.K.] was happy, relaxed and basically
tick [sic] free when at his maternal
grandmother’s home with his sister.
41. As of March 1, 2013, [J.K.] did not
verbalize any concerns or report any
instances of domestic violence or
significant conflict occurring within
[grandparents’] home to Wynn’s Family
Psychology.
42. [J.K.’s] sudden and unsupported
statement of alleged violence and excessive
alcohol use in the [grandparents’] home,
followed a period of time [J.K.] was in the
sole care, control and influence of
[mother].
43. [Grandparents] have materially complied
with every request by the Department of
Social Services.
44. [Grandparents] have loved and provided
for the children, either fully or
substantially, their entire lives.
45. [Grandparents] are not a danger to the
children.
46. [Grandparents] have been the sole
source of stability for both children over
the course of their lives.
47. [Grandparents] are the only available
kinship placement for both children,
together.
-9-
48. Continued efforts to eliminate the need
for placement of the juveniles and to
reunify the Respondent Mother permanently
would be inconsistent with the juveniles’
health, safety, and need for a safe,
permanent home within a reasonable period of
time.
49. [J.K.] was placed with [father] on May
10, 2013.
50. [Father] paid court ordered child
support in the amount of $700.00 per month
prior to [J.K.] being placed with him by the
Department of Social Services.
51. [Father’s] child support obligation was
suspended immediately upon [J.K.] being
placed in his care.
52. The respondent father has taken [J.K.]
to his counseling sessions, when requested
to do so by DSS, and has otherwise
cooperated with the Department of Social
Services.
53. The Department of Social [S]ervices has
asked [father] to: stay in contact, provide
insurance for [J.K.], make doctor
appointments, be on time for visits,
maintain a working phone and provide DSS
with his employment status.
. . . .
60. The plan of reunification of [J.K.]
with his father should continue.
The court then made the following pertinent conclusions of
law:
5. That it would be against the health and
welfare of the juveniles and contrary to
-10-
their best interests to be returned to the
custody of the respondent mother.
6. That continued efforts to eliminate the
need for placement of the juveniles and to
reunify with the Respondent Mother would be
inconsistent with the juveniles’ health,
safety, and need for a safe, permanent home
within a reasonable period of time and
should therefore be ceased.
7. That the plan for the juveniles shall
therefore change from reunification with the
respondent mother to custody with the
maternal grandmother, and this is in the
best interests of the juveniles.
8. The plan for [J.K.] should continue to
be reunification with respondent father.
9. That the legal and physical custody of
[J.K. and L.K.] shall be placed immediately
with their maternal grandmother, . . . and
this is in their best interests.
The court further made conclusions of law that it was in
the best interests of J.K. to receive psychological treatment
from Wynn’s Family Psychology and to have visitation with his
parents.
IV. Failure to Make Findings
DSS contends the court erred by failing to make findings of
fact mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1. We disagree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1 requires a court at every review
and permanency planning hearing to consider certain criteria in
determining the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate
-11-
disposition, and “make written findings regarding those that are
relevant[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(c),(d) (2013). Among
the listed criteria is “[w]hether efforts to reunite the
juvenile with either parent clearly would be futile or
inconsistent with the juvenile’s safety and need for a safe,
permanent home within a reasonable period of time.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-906.1(d)(3). Additionally, the statute requires the
court to make certain findings of fact, if relevant, when the
juvenile is not placed with a parent at the permanency planning
hearing, including: (1) “[w]hether it is possible for the
juvenile to be placed with a parent within the next six months
and, if not, why such placement is not in the juvenile’s best
interests” and (2) “[w]here the juvenile’s placement with a
parent is unlikely within six months, whether legal guardianship
or custody with a relative or some other suitable person should
be established . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(e)(1),(2).
DSS argues that the court failed to make a written finding
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(d)(3) as to whether
reunification efforts with either parent clearly would be futile
or inconsistent with the juvenile’s safety and need for a safe,
permanent home. It further argues that the court failed to make
a written finding of fact pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
-12-
906.1(e)(1) as to whether it is possible for the juvenile to be
placed with a parent within the next six months. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-906.1(e)(1)
When a statute in the Juvenile Code calls for the court to
make certain findings of fact, it is not necessary for the court
to quote the exact language of the statute as long as the “order
embraces the substance of the statutory provisions . . . .” In
re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165, 169, 752 S.E.2d 453, 456 (2013).
While it is the better practice for the trial court to expressly
state in its findings that it found that placement with a parent
was not possible or unlikely, we think that the trial court
implicitly made these findings when it found that reunification
with father should continue to be the permanent plan, that the
juveniles should not be placed with their parents, and that it
is in the juveniles’ best interests that placement and custody
of the juveniles be awarded to their maternal grandmother.
This argument is without merit.
V. Abuse of Discretion
DSS and father contend that the court erred and abused its
discretion by transferring custody of J.K. from DSS, and
placement with father, to the maternal grandmother. They argue
that the court erred by finding father acted inconsistently with
-13-
his constitutionally-protected status as a natural parent. They
submit that the finding is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence. We disagree.
“A natural parent’s constitutionally protected paramount
interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of his
or her child is a counterpart of the parental responsibilities
the parent has assumed and is based on a presumption that he or
she will act in the best interest of the child.” Price v.
Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 79, 484 S.E.2d 528, 534 (1997). In a
juvenile proceeding under Chapter 7B, a natural parent may lose
this constitutionally-protected right to control, and permanent
custody of the child may be awarded to a nonparent if the court
either finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that (1)
the natural parent is unfit, or (2) the natural parent’s conduct
is inconsistent with the constitutionally-protected status. In
re D.M., 211 N.C. App. 382, 385, 712 S.E.2d 355, 357 (2011).
“[T]o apply the best interest of the child test in a custody
dispute between a parent and a nonparent, a trial court must
find that the natural parent is unfit or his or her conduct is
inconsistent with a parent’s constitutionally protected status.”
In re B.G., 197 N.C. App. 570, 574, 677 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2009),
-14-
appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 212, 709
S.E.2d 919 (2011).
These principles, however, do not apply to the instant case
because the court in the order under review did not transfer
legal custody from a parent to a nonparent, but instead
transferred legal and physical custody from DSS to a relative.
We therefore need not address the arguments of father and DSS
concerning that finding, as it was unnecessary and superfluous.
We note, nonetheless, that at the time when the court awards
permanent custody of J.K., it must make these determinations
prior to awarding custody to a nonparent.
DSS and father also contend that Judge Wells improperly
decided factual issues that had been previously decided by Judge
Love in the adjudication and disposition order. They argue that
Judge Wells improperly overruled a decision of another district
court judge without a showing of changed circumstances. Father
further argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel
prevented Judge Wells from re-litigating the issue of whether
domestic violence occurred in grandparents’ home. He also
argues that the court received improper evidence in the form of
unsworn testimony from grandparents’ attorney and reports from a
-15-
psychologist obtained subsequent to the hearing. We are not
persuaded.
As a general principle, “no appeal lies from one Superior
Court judge to another; that one Superior Court judge may not
correct another’s errors of law; and that ordinarily one judge
may not modify, overrule, or change the judgment of another
Superior Court judge previously made in the same action.”
Calloway v. Ford Motor Co., 281 N.C. 496, 501, 189 S.E.2d 484,
488 (1972). This principle also applies to district court
judges. Shamley v. Shamley, 117 N.C. App. 175, 183, 455 S.E.2d
435, 439-40 (1994). The rule, however, does not apply if the
court’s ruling is entered at a different stage of a proceeding
and the materials considered by the subsequent judge are not the
same. Smithwick v. Crutchfield, 87 N.C. App. 374, 376, 361
S.E.2d 111, 113 (1987). During the permanency planning and
review stage of a juvenile proceeding a court is not bound by
previous orders “when changing needs and circumstances impact
future permanency plans.” In re C.E.L., 171 N.C. App. 468,
478, 615 S.E.2d 427, 432 (2005). The court at the permanency
planning hearing is required to “consider information” from the
parties to the proceeding “and any other person or agency that
will aid in the court’s review.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(c).
-16-
Further, “[t]he court may consider any evidence, including
hearsay evidence . . . from any person that is not a party, that
the court finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to
determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate
disposition.” Id.
We also note that “[t]he purpose of abuse, neglect and
dependency proceedings is for the court to determine whether the
juvenile should be adjudicated as having the status of abused,
neglected or dependent.” In re J.S., 182 N.C. App. 79, 86, 641
S.E.2d 395, 399 (2007). “Both the existence of the condition of
neglect and its degree are by nature subject to change. Thus,
an adjudication that a child was neglected on a particular prior
day does not bind the trial court with regard to the issues
before it at the time of a later termination hearing[.]” In re
Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 715, 319 S.E.2d 227, 232 (1984).
Collateral estoppel applies only when (1) there is a prior
action resulting in a final judgment on the merits; (2)
identical issues are involved; and (3) the issue was actually
litigated and determined in the prior action and was necessary
to the judgment. McDonald v. Skeen, 152 N.C. App. 228, 230,
567 S.E.2d 209, 211 (2002).
-17-
Here, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply
because there has not been a final judgment or resolution of
this proceeding, which is still ongoing with further proceedings
contemplated. The order entered by Judge Love suggests that he
did not actually conduct an evidentiary hearing. The preamble
to that order states:
Prior to the call of the cases, the parties
announced to the Court that a settlement had
been reached as is embodied by the
Memorandum of Order attached hereto and
incorporated by reference. Pursuant to the
parties’ stipulations and the signed
consents of the Memorandum and
representations by counsel for the purposes
of adjudication, the Court finds as follows:
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE, AND WITH CONSENT
AND STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE
FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY CLEAR,
COGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
Judge Love then proceeded to find as facts, inter alia, that the
juveniles witnessed domestic violence in grandparents’ home
while their mother was residing there and that J.K. was “in
counseling due to experiencing domestic violence.”
At the permanency planning hearing, Judge Wells received
evidence, as permitted by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(c), from
the maternal grandmother, who testified that she had been caring
for J.K. full time pursuant to the voluntary custody agreement
since June of 2010. She denied assaulting mother and described
-18-
the incident mentioned in the adjudication order as merely a
“tug-of-war” over possession of a purse as mother was moving out
of her house with the juveniles. Judge Wells also considered a
report from J.K.’s psychologist dated 1 March 2013, in which the
therapist stated that during the course of eight sessions
beginning 21 September 2012 through the last session on 14
February 2013, J.K. never reported “any instances of domestic
violence/significant conflict occurring within his grandparent’s
home.” The psychologist also noted “[J.K.] described having
positive relationships with his grandparents, mother, and sister
throughout treatment.” Mother also testified at the permanency
review and planning hearing that she does not have “a violent
history” with her mother, although they will “bicker and argue”
with each other.
Judge Wells had different materials before her at the
permanency planning and review hearing. She was tasked with
determining the best interests of the juveniles as of that time,
a different determination than what was made at the adjudication
phase of the proceedings. The arguments of DSS and father are
overruled.
DSS also contends that the court abused its discretion by
awarding custody of J.K. and L.K. to the maternal grandmother
-19-
despite evidence of domestic violence and alcohol abuse in the
home. Father additionally argues that the court abused its
discretion by removing J.K. from a home where he was thriving.
We disagree.
“A ruling committed to a trial court’s discretion is to be
accorded great deference and will be upset only upon a showing
that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result
of a reasoned decision.” White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324
S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985). Findings of fact numbers 33-35, 38-40,
and 46-47 show that the two juveniles have a nurturing and
relaxed relationship with each other which is in their best
interests to maintain and that placement with grandparents is
the only available kinship placement for both. Findings of fact
numbers 36-37 and 43-46 indicate that grandparents have been
providing for the children’s needs of love, companionship,
medical and mental health treatments, and a safe, stable home.
Findings of fact are binding “where there is some evidence to
support those findings, even though the evidence might sustain
findings to the contrary.” In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101,
110-11, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252-53 (1984). We hold that there is
evidence in the record to support the findings. As these
-20-
findings reflect a reasoned decision by the trial court, we find
no abuse of discretion.
These arguments are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Judges CALABRIA and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).