Opinion
No. COA15-1129
04-19-2016
IN THE MATTER OF: J.S.
Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee for Cumberland County Department of Social Services, petitioner-appellee. Beth A. Hall for guardian ad litem. Miller & Audino, LLP, by Jay Anthony Audino, for respondent-appellant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. Cumberland County, No. 14 JA 321 Appeal by respondent from orders entered 26 February 2015, 26 May 2015, and 17 June 2015 by Judge Edward A. Pone in Cumberland County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 April 2016. Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee for Cumberland County Department of Social Services, petitioner-appellee. Beth A. Hall for guardian ad litem. Miller & Audino, LLP, by Jay Anthony Audino, for respondent-appellant. DAVIS, Judge.
J.S. ("Respondent-mother") appeals from the trial court's (1) 26 February 2015 adjudication consent order; (2) 26 May 2015 disposition order; and (3) 17 June 2015 amended disposition order, which had the effect of ceasing reunification efforts and visitation with her son, James. After careful review, we affirm the trial court's orders.
Pseudonyms are used throughout the opinion to protect the identities of the minor children and for ease of reading. N.C.R. App. P. 3.1(b).
Factual Background
James was born on 6 August 2014 to Respondent-mother and his biological father, John. Respondent-mother has one other child, "Gary," who has been in the custody of the Cumberland County Department of Social Services ("DSS") since 23 August 2013 due to (1) Respondent-mother's and John's unstable housing situation; (2) the "unclean and totally unsanitary conditions of the home"; (3) lack of proper supervision and care regarding Gary; (4) exposure of Gary to domestic violence between Respondent-mother and John; (5) Gary's exposure to substance abuse; and (6) Respondent-mother's and John's "limited" parenting skills and poor decision making. Gary has remained in DSS custody due to the fact that "the conditions which led to [his] removal [from] the home have not been alleviated."
James' father is not a party to the present appeal.
These same conditions persisted after James' birth and resulted in the removal of James from the home of Respondent-mother and John. Shortly after James' birth, DSS filed a petition in Cumberland County District Court alleging that he was a neglected and dependent juvenile based on Respondent-mother's and John's inability to correct the conditions that led to the removal of Gary from their home despite having ample time, opportunity, and ability to do so. On 7 August 2014, the trial court entered an order granting nonsecure custody of James to DSS.
On 26 February 2015, a hearing was held on DSS' petition before the Honorable Edward A. Pone in Cumberland County District Court. That same day, Judge Pone entered an adjudication consent order adjudicating James as a dependent juvenile on the grounds that his parents were unable to provide safe, stable, and suitable housing for him and there was no appropriate alternative child care plan available. The trial court further ordered DSS to retain custody of James pending a dispositional hearing.
A dispositional hearing was held on 17 April 2015, and on 26 May 2015 the trial court entered a disposition order concluding that the return of James to his parents would be contrary to his welfare and best interests; that he needed more care and supervision than his parents could provide; that Respondent-mother and John were not fit and proper persons for the care, custody, and control of James; that it was in James' best interests to relieve DSS of further efforts to reunify him with his parents; and that it was not in the best interests of James for his parents to have visitation with him. The trial court ordered DSS to cease reunification efforts and visitation. The court subsequently entered an amended disposition order on 17 June 2015, which added an additional finding of fact to its prior disposition order. On 17 June 2015, Respondent-mother filed a notice of appeal of the 26 February 2015 adjudication consent order, 26 May 2015 disposition order, and 17 June 2015 amended disposition order.
Analysis
Counsel for Respondent-mother has filed a "no-merit" brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. He states that he "is unable to discern any issue in the record on appeal that might arguably support the appeal of the Adjudication Order or Amended Disposition Order." Counsel further states that he has consulted with the Office of the Appellate Defender, which was also unable to find reversible or prejudicial error in the record.
Counsel proposes two possible issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of Gary's court file; and (2) whether the trial court erred in ceasing reunification efforts. However, counsel concedes that even if Gary's court file was erroneously considered, such error was harmless due to the existence of other competent evidence tending to support the trial court's findings of fact. He further concedes that the cessation of further reunification efforts was within the trial court's discretion.
Counsel has also submitted a letter he wrote to Respondent-mother on 23 November 2015 providing her with copies of the settled record on appeal, the applicable transcripts, and his appellate brief. He informed her that she had the option of filing a pro se brief with this Court, explaining that the pro se brief would be due within 30 days of the filing of his appellate brief. However, despite being informed of this option, Respondent-mother did not file a pro se brief on her own behalf.
Consequently, we conclude that Respondent-mother's counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Moreover, after a complete and thorough review of the record, we are unable to find anything therein that would support a determination that the trial court committed reversible error in ceasing reunification efforts and visitation.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the orders of the trial court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Judges HUNTER, JR. and ZACHARY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).