 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
The Catawba County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition on 22 January 2003 alleging that M.O. (respondent) and T.O. (the children's father) abused and neglected their two daughters, K.N.O. and A.R.O. (the children). The trial court adjudicated the children as abused and neglected in an order filed 7 November 2003 and entered its dispositional order on the same date.
The initial permanency planning hearing was held during two sessions on 16 December 2003 and 13 January 2004, and the permanency planning order was filed on 13 February 2004. The trial court ordered " hat the permanent plan for the . . . children shall be a concurrent plan of adoption or return to either themother or the father." A permanency review hearing was set for 4 May 2004 but was continued until 29 June 2004 because respondent's initial counsel had a scheduling conflict in federal court. Subsequently, on 28 May 2004, the trial court removed respondent's initial counsel and appointed Jennifer Eaker (Ms. Eaker) to represent respondent. The trial court then continued the 29 June 2004 permanency review hearing until 2 July 2004 to give Ms. Eaker an opportunity to review respondent's file.
The trial court conducted the permanency review hearing on 2 July 2004. DSS introduced its permanency review report (DSS report) into evidence at the hearing. The guardian ad litem (GAL) also introduced a permanency review report (GAL report) into evidence. Neither DSS, the GAL, nor respondent presented sworn testimony at the hearing; however, Ms. Eaker spoke on behalf of respondent. Ms. Eaker began her address to the trial court as follows:
MS. EAKER: Yes, sir. On behalf of [respondent], I think the most important thing today is that she has been clean and sober since April 26 and working at her psychological --
THE COURT: Of what year?
MS. EAKER: This year, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. EAKER: 2004. I apologize.
Looking at [respondent's] psychological, . . . the last sentence said that [respondent's] ability to improve self- control, gain insight into the reason that she drinks and (inaudible) are essential to [respondent] being able to parent these children. Once [respondent] (inaudible) thepsychological evaluation, she has now started [counseling] with Roger Moore . . . at Family Guidance[.]
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MS. EAKER: It's scheduled for July 7, her first appointment with Roger Moore.
Following an extensive discussion with the trial court, Ms. Eaker presented her legal arguments. Ms. Eaker concluded her presentation by asking the trial court to allow DSS to continue its efforts toward reunifying the children with respondent.
The trial court entered its permanency review order on 16 August 2004. The trial court made fifteen specific findings of fact, most of which are pertinent to this appeal:
1. That the following persons were present for a pretrial conference held on Thursday, June 17, 2004: J. David Abernethy, Staff Attorney for ; Donna Davis and Linda Smith, Social Workers for ; Tamara Hayman, Program Supervisor; and the placement providers.
2. A.R.O., born February 22, 2000, . . . and K.N.O., born June 23, 2002, . . . are the . . . children herein. Their parents are [M.O. and T.O.]. The Petition herein was filed on January 22, 2003, and a non-secure cus
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|