In The Mattter Of: S.G. and O.G

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-824 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 IN THE MATTER OF: Cumberland County Nos. 12 JA 417-18 S.G. and O.G. Appeal by mother from order entered 25 April 2014 by Judge Edward A. Pone in Cumberland County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 January 2015. Christopher L. Carr for petitioner-appellee County Department of Social Services. Cumberland Anna S. Lucas for mother-appellant. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Carrie A. Hanger and Farris Martini, for guardian ad litem. STEELMAN, Judge. Where a DSS court report was received into evidence without objection, and this report supported the trial court’s finding of fact that V.W. understood the nature of a legal guardianship and had adequate resources to care for the juveniles, the trial court did not err in awarding guardianship of the juveniles to V.W. -2I. Factual and Procedural Background On 9 July 2012, the Cumberland County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed a petition alleging that S.G. and O.G. were abused, neglected and/or seriously neglected, and dependent juveniles. DSS asserted that S.G. (mother) had emotionally and physically abused the juveniles, and that other family members had sexually abused the juveniles while in mother’s care.1 non-secure custody order was not issued, but instead A the juveniles were placed in the home of their maternal cousin and godmother, V.W., as a kinship placement. On 2 October 2012, the juveniles were adjudicated neglected based upon stipulations made by the parties, and the allegations of abuse and dependency were dismissed. At disposition, the trial court ordered that DSS be awarded custody, but ordered that the juveniles remain with V.W. On 25 April 2014, the trial court awarded custody of the juveniles to V.W. and named V.W. their guardian. court declined to grant mother visitation mother not have any contact with the juveniles. Mother appeals. II. Guardianship of V.W. 1 The juveniles’ father was deceased. and The trial ordered that -3Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by awarding guardianship to V.W. We disagree. A. 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). Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(g), at the conclusion of a permanency planning hearing, “the judge shall make specific findings as to the best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent home for the juvenile within a reasonable period of time.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(g) (2013). “[W]hen the court finds it would be in the best interests of the juvenile, the court may appoint a guardian of the person for the juvenile.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-600(a) (2013). “We review a trial court’s determination as to the best interest of the child for an abuse of discretion.” In re D.S.A., 181 N.C. App. 715, 720, 641 S.E.2d 18, 22 (2007). B. Qualifications to Serve as Guardian Mother contends that the trial court failed to properly verify whether V.W. understood the legal significance of being appointed guardian, and failed to determine whether V.W. had -4adequate resources to care appropriately for the juveniles. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) (2013) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B600(c) (2013). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-600(c) requires the trial court to “verify that the person being appointed as guardian of the juvenile understands the legal significance of the appointment and will have adequate resources to care appropriately for the juvenile.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-600(c); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) (appointment of a guardian at a permanency planning review hearing). This Court has previously held that the trial court is not required to “make any specific findings in order to make the verification.” In re J.E., 182 N.C. App. 612, 616-17, 643 S.E.2d 70, 73, disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 427, 648 S.E.2d 504 (2007). When the trial court makes the required verification at a permanency planning review hearing, the court juvenile, shall the “consider guardian, information any person from the providing parents, care for the the juvenile, the custodian or agency with custody, the guardian ad litem, and any other person or agency that will aid in the court’s review.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(c) (2013). The trial court may also “consider any evidence, including hearsay evidence . . . that the court finds to be relevant, reliable, -5and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition.” Id. In the instant case, the trial court found as fact that DSS: has had a guardianship conference with [V.W.], and she indicated that she understands the nature and legal significance of the appointment of guardianship. That the Court has verified the same on this date. The Court further finds that she has adequate resources and means to provide for the care of the juveniles, and has been doing so. Mother argues that V.W. did not attend the permanency planning hearing, and asserts that the trial court relied solely upon the social worker’s determination that V.W. understood the legal significance of guardianship and had adequate resources to care for the insufficient support the juveniles. competent trial Mother evidence court’s contends presented findings of at that there was the hearing to fact on V.W.’s guardianship. The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by the DSS court report filed 15 October 2013, evidence without objection. which was received into Additionally, Bobbie Campbell, the social worker who completed the report, testified that she held a guardianship conference with V.W., that V.W. understood the -6“the nature of guardianship[,]” and that she was willing and able to provide foreseeable future. for the care of the juveniles for the We conclude, based upon the DSS report and Campbell’s testimony, that the trial court complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B–600(c) and –906.1(j). AFFIRMED. Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).

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.