On or about 9 February 1996, petitioner Mitchell County Department of Social Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent and her husband with regard to their minor child, Brittany Michelle Carpenter. An order had previously been entered adjudging the child to be a neglected juvenile and placing her in petitioner's custody.

Respondent failed to appear at a hearing held 4 June 1996, but she was represented by counsel at the hearing. Respondent's counsel moved for a continuance, but the trial court denied the motion. Petitioner presented evidence, and the trial court heard arguments of counsel. On 11 June 1996, the trial court entered an order finding, inter alia, as follows:

6) In an Order entered on 12 April 1994, by the Honorable Claude Smith, District Court Judge, the juvenile herein was adjudicated as a neglected juvenile pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-517(21).

7) The above captioned juvenile has been in the custody of the Petitioner, Mitchell County Department of Social Services, since 12 April 1994.

8) Petitioner has provided numerous services to respondents, in order to achieve reunification. These efforts have been unsuccessful, and respondent parents have failed to consistently comply with requirements of the reunification plan.

9) The juvenile herein has remained in the custody of Petitioner for a period in excess of twelve months without any substantial progress by respondent parents to eliminate the conditions resulting in the removal of the child from their care and the aforementioned neglect adjudication.

Based upon its findings, the trial court concluded as follows:

1) The aforementioned respondent parents have willfully left the child in foster care for more than twelve months consecutive, without showing to the satisfaction of the Court that substantial progress has been made within twelve months in correcting those conditions which led to the removal of the child, and without showing positive response within twelve months to the diligent efforts of the Petitioner to encourage the parents to strengthen the parental relationship to the minor child or to make and follow through with constructive planning for the future of the minor child.

2) The minor child herein has been adjudicated as a neglected child as defined by N.C.G.S. § 7A-517(21).

Based upon its conclusions, the trial court ordered that respondent's parental rights as to Brittany Carpenter be terminated.

On 25 September 1996, respondent filed a motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60 (1990) seeking relief from the trial court's orders denying her motion for a continuance and terminating her parental rights. In the motion, respondent stated she was unable to attend the hearing on 4 June 1996 because she is physically disabled, does not have a driver's license, and when she asked her husband to take her to court on the morning of the hearing he refused because he felt they would lose the case. Respondent further asserted that had she been in court she "would have shown that the plans for reunification established by [petitioner] were inadequate in light of [her] disabilities . . . and her personal living situation."

Following a hearing held on 12 November 1996, the trial court entered an order making the following pertinent findings of fact:

6) The files and records in these matters are replete with efforts, on behalf of Mitchell County DSS, to reunify Brittany Michelle Carpenter with Respondent Michelle Carpenter. These files and records are replete with examples of Respondent Michelle Carpenter's failure to show any substantial progress in obtaining this reunification.

7) Respondent Michelle Carpenter received adequate and legal notification of the termination hearing scheduled for 04 June 1996. It was incumbent upon her to appear at that time if she desired to be heard in that matter.

Based upon these findings of fact, the trial court concluded as follows:

1) There is no excusable neglect, on the part of Respondent Michelle Carpenter, relative to her failure to appear at the hearing on 04 June 1996.

2) Respondent Michelle Carpenter has no meritorious defense to the proceeding terminating her parental rights to Brittany Michelle Carpenter.

Based upon these conclusions, the trial court denied respondent's Rule 60 motion. Respondent gave notice of appeal from the trial court's 11 June 1996 order terminating her parental rights and 28 November 1996 order denying her Rule 60 motion.

SMITH, Judge.

We note at the outset that respondent has not assigned error to the 11 June 1996 order terminating her parental rights. Furthermore, respondent's notice of appeal with regard to that order was not timely because a motion made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60 does not toll the time for filing notice of appeal from the underlying judgment. See N.C.R. App. P. 3(c); Parrish v. Cole, 38 N.C. App. 691, 248 S.E.2d 878 (1978). Insofar as respondent gave notice of appeal from the 11 June 1996 order, the appeal must be dismissed.

Respondent's only argument presented on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a new trial. She contends the trial court should have granted the requested relief because she showed excusable neglect for her failure to appear at the termination hearing and because her pleadings established a meritorious defense to the petition. We disagree.

"To set aside a judgment on the grounds of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b), the moving party must show that the judgment rendered against him was due to his excusable neglect and that he has a meritorious defense." Thomas M. McInnis Assoc., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 424, 349 S.E.2d 552, 554 (1986). A motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion, Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 217 S.E.2d 532 (1975). What constitutes excusable neglect is a question of law which is fully reviewable on appeal. In re Hall, 89 N.C. App. 685, 366 S.E.2d 882, disc. review denied, 322 N.C. 835, 371 S.E.2d 277 (1988) "However, the trial court's decision is final if there is competent evidence to support its findings and those findings support its conclusion." Id. at 687, 366 S.E.2d at 884. "[W]hat constitutes excusable neglect depends upon what, under all the surrounding circumstances, may be reasonably expected of a party in paying proper attention to his case." McInnis, 318 N.C. at 425, 349 S.E.2d at 555.

The record in this case shows that respondent is disabled, that she does not have a driver's license, depends upon her husband and others for transportation, and does not have a telephone. However, the record also shows she did not ask her husband to take her to court until the morning of the hearing and her in-laws, who have a telephone, lived nearby.

We believe the evidence in the record supports the trial court's conclusion that respondent's failure to appear did not amount to excusable neglect. A party paying proper attention to her case would have made transportation arrangements prior to the day the case was scheduled for hearing or would have contacted her attorney when she discovered no transportation was available. Furthermore, nothing in the record shows respondent was lulled into missing the court date by any assurances of her husband. Cf. McInnis, 318 N.C. 421, 349 S.E.2d 552 (holding that the defendant's failure to respond to a complaint was due to excusable neglect where she reasonably relied upon her husband's assurances the matter had been taken care of). The trial court did not err by concluding that respondent's actions did not amount to excusable neglect.

Absent a showing of excusable neglect, any meritorious defense pled by the movant becomes immaterial. Hall, 89 N.C. App. 685, 366 S.E.2d 882. Therefore, we need not address respondent's remaining argument that the pleadings revealed she had a meritorious defense.

The order of the trial court denying respondent's Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed. Respondent's purported appeal from the order terminating her parental rights is dismissed.

Affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part.

Judge WYNN dissents.

Judge JOHN concurs.