In The Matter Of: K.M.B. and M.M.B
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA11-346 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 September 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: K.M.B. & M.M.B. Guilford County Nos. 08 JT 458 09 JT 430 Appeal by guardian ad litem from order entered 24 November 2010 by Court. Judge Michelle Fletcher in Guilford County District Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 September 2011. Mercedes O. Chut, for appellee Guilford County Department of Social Services. Donna Michelle Wright, for appellant guardian ad litem. MARTIN, Chief Judge. The guardian ad litem appeals from the trial court s order dismissing her motion alleging the Guilford County Department of Social Services ( DSS ) abused its discretion in the adoption selection process involving the minor children. After careful consideration, we affirm the order of the trial court. -2The minor children juvenile cases which K.M.B. and resulted in M.M.B. the are subjects termination of of their parents parental rights. K.M.B. has been in the custody of DSS since and 2 September 2008, the order terminating rights in her case was entered on 2 November 2009. parental M.M.B. has been in the custody of DSS since 10 September 2009, and the order terminating parental rights in her case was entered on 8 April 2010. The adoption selection process for K.M.B. began October 2009 and for M.M.B. on 26 February 2010. involved the evaluation of multiple on 23 The process prospective adoptive families by DSS workers and, on 11 May 2010, a meeting by a DSS adoption selection prospective committee. families, The including the committee two considered families K.M.B. and M.M.B. had been residing separately. with four whom The guardian ad litem participated in the meeting and discussion, but did not vote in the selection. Three DSS workers voted for one family and three for another family. Neither of those families was a family with whom the children then resided. The facilitator cast the deciding vote in favor of the W. family. the committee meeting Robert Williams. was reported to the The result of Director of DSS, Director Williams undertook his own evaluation -3and changed the selection to the C. family, which had been fostering K.M.B. On 25 June 2010, DSS filed an adoption notification for both children with service on the guardian ad litem. On 29 June 2010, the guardian ad litem filed a motion alleging abuse of discretion on the part of DSS pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-908(f) and seeking transfer of the adoption proceeding to the district court. After the matter was transferred to the district court, on 9 August 2010, the guardian ad litem filed a second motion for abuse of discretion, seeking to overturn the decision of Director Williams. The matter came on for hearing on 25 October 2010. Testimony was taken from numerous DSS employees, including most of the attendees of the adoption selection committee meeting, and from Director Williams. The trial court determined that Director Williams had not abused his discretion in his selection of the adoptive family and allowed DSS s motion to dismiss the guardian ad litem s motion for abuse of discretion. The guardian ad litem appeals. _________________________ On appeal, the guardian ad litem contends the trial court erred in dismissing her motion because the director of DSS -4abused his discretion by choosing a different set of adoptive parents from those chosen by the adoption selection committee without any showing that the internal policy guidelines. her role children in safeguarding was independent concerns. overturn did not comply with The guardian ad litem argues that the circumvented review committee when without best interests the seeking of director her input the minor conducted or an hearing her She asserts that, if the director can unilaterally a participate decision in the by the adoption committee selection after failing to committee meeting, his reliance on his own investigation constitutes an abuse of his power. The We disagree with these assertions. director investigate placements. cases of social for adoption services and to has a duty supervise N.C. Gen. Stat. § 108A-14(a)(6) (2009). [t]o adoptive Under the Juvenile Code, [t]he process of selection of specific adoptive parents shall be the responsibility of and within the discretion of the county department of social services or licensed childplacing agency. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-908(f) (2009). The guardian ad litem may file a motion alleging abuse of discretion in the adoption selection process within ten days of service of a written adoption notification. Id. A discretionary decision -5is granted great deference and will not be overturned unless 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 evidence, its appeal. Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding & Ins. Servs., 124 N.C. App. 332, fact are In general, [w]hile a trial court s binding conclusions 336, 477 of S.E.2d if law 211, supported are 215 by reviewable (1996). We sufficient de novo adopt on this standard for reviewing the trial court s ruling the guardian ad litem s motion. The trial court made numerous findings of fact regarding the adoption specifically being selection relate informed to about process. Director the The following Williams adoption findings involvement placement committee s decision: 38. On or about May 20, 2010, DSS Director Robert Williams requested the DSS files, child profiles, the four home studies, and pre-placement assessments for each of the four adoptive families. DSS Director Robert Williams received and reviewed all of those requested materials. DSS Director Robert Williams also took those materials home with him for the weekend. DSS Director Robert Williams did review and consider those materials during the weekend. 39. On May 24, 2010, DSS Director Robert Williams held an Executive Review Meeting to after selection -6discuss the [minor] children with DSS Supervisor Turner, Pam Watkins, Program Manager, and Rosetta Darden, Permanency Officer, who was the deciding vote at the adoption selection placement committee on May 11, 2010. DSS Director Robert Williams stated he had reviewed the TDM notes, child profiles, the home studies, and the preplacement assessments presented, and did not feel there was enough information to support the decision that the adoption selection placement committee made and was therefore overturning the decision. 40. DSS Director Robert Williams, after deliberating over all the information, decided to reject the Adoption Placement Selection Committee s recommendation as to which family should be selected to adopt the juveniles, and decided that the [C.] foster family was in the best interest as an adoptive home for the juveniles. 41. In making his decision that it was in the best interest of the juveniles for the [C.] foster family to be the adoptive home for the juveniles, DSS Director Robert Williams, who holds a Master s [sic] of Science in Social Work (MSSW) Degree from the University of Texas in Austin and has 35 years experience in the social services field, determined that all four of the adoptive families under consideration were acceptable as permanent homes for the juveniles, but that the [C.] family had one additional positive attribute that the other three families did not have, and that positive attribute was that the juvenile [K.M.B.] was placed with the [C.] foster family shortly after her birth, had been living in their home for two years, and had developed a very strong bond with both of the [C.] foster parents whom she referred to as Mom and Dad. DSS Director Robert -7Williams reasoned that although the juvenile [M.M.B.] had been living in the home of the [W.] foster family since her birth, that period of time was shorter in duration as compared to the two years the juvenile [K.M.B.] had lived with the [C.] foster family. DSS Director Robert Williams also reasoned that the older age of the juvenile [K.M.B.], coupled with the longer period of time the juvenile [K.M.B.] was with the [C.] foster family, resulted in a stronger bond between [K.M.B.] and the [C.] foster family as compared to the bond that existed between the juvenile [M.M.B.] and the [W.] foster family. The stronger bond between [K.M.B.] and the [C.] foster family was the deciding factor for DSS Director Robert Williams decision of the [C.] foster family over the other three potential adoptive families as the adoptive family that was in the best interest of the juveniles. 42. DSS Director Robert Williams determined that there was not anything the DSS staff did not do that they should have done with respect to the adoption selection process for the juveniles. According to DSS Director Robert Williams, the members of the adoption selection committee and he can all be fair and still disagree. The decision as to which of the four prospective families would be chosen to adopt the juveniles was a difficult and painful one for DSS Director Robert Williams to make. However, the Director made the decision of the [C. family] based on his review of all the files, home studies, profiles, and preplacement assessments, plus discussing the matter with DSS Supervisor Turner, Rosetta Darden and Pam Watkins, which led him to conclude that adoption by the [C. family] was in the best interest of the juveniles. Based on the findings, the trial court concluded: -844. The decision of DSS Director Robert Williams to reject the recommendation by the adoption selection placement committee, and to instead select the [C.] foster family as the adoptive home for the juveniles, was the result of a reasoned deliberation, was not whimsical or arbitrary, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. DSS Director Robert Williams had the statutory authority pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-908(f) and § 108A-14(6)(13) to reject the recommendation of the adoption placement committee and make the final decision of the adoptive placement. The guardian ad litem does not contest any of the findings of fact by the trial court; therefore, the findings are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). We conclude the trial court s ruling that Director Williams did not abuse his discretion is amply supported by the findings of fact listed above as well as other findings made by the court. As head of the county DSS agency, Director Williams has authority pursuant to statute to use his discretion to determine the adoptive family for the minor children. Director Williams testified that he is not bound by the recommendation of the adoption placement selection regarding an adoptive family. committee or by any individual Director Williams exercised his authority by being involved in the adoption selection process, receiving information about the committee s meeting and ultimate -9decision, and undertaking his own review of the case. He considered information about both juveniles and about each of the prospective families. In court, he described his reasoning behind the decision to select a family other than the one chosen by the committee and his reasoning is reflected in the trial court s findings process or the of fact. director s We find decision nothing making in which the overall indicates a decision so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. 833. White, 312 N.C. at 777, 324 S.E.2d at Thus, the trial court did not err in determining that Director Williams did not commit an abuse of discretion when he chose a family to adopt the juveniles. Moreover, given the findings of fact, we find the guardian ad litem s contention that her role was undermined director s independent review to be without merit. that, since adoption Director committee Williams meeting did where not she her the She argues participate aired by in the concerns and failed to contact her or ask for input during his review, he circumvented her role in ensuring that the best interests of the children were taken into account. However, the trial court determined that the guardian ad litem was involved throughout the adoption planning process and was provided with all the -10information she requested, that the guardian ad litem and Director Williams spoke several times throughout the process, and that Director Williams was made aware that the guardian ad litem would appeal from any decision selecting the C. family as the adoptive family. litem had an It is clear from this that the guardian ad active role in the planning process and that Director Williams was well-informed about all aspects of the process, including the guardian ad litem s thoughts on the matter. The fact that the guardian ad litem would have made a different choice from the director is of no moment where the discretion lies solely with the director in the adoption selection process. Accordingly, dismissing the we affirm guardian ad the order litem s of motion discretion. Affirmed. Judges STEELMAN and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e). the trial for court abuse of
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
