 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
duled counseling but it has not yet begun.
12. The social worker requested a drug test from each of the parents on April 22, 2004. Neither parent took the requested drug test.
15. [Respondent] has not obtained effective treatment for her alcoholism. The [children's] father has relapsed into cocaine use and is incarcerated. Neither has become able to provide a safe home for the . . . children eighteen months after the . . . children were removed from their possession. Considering all of the foregoing facts in this order, including those in prior orders incorporated herein by reference, it is unlikely that either of the . . . children will be able to return to the home of either parent within six months. Continued efforts to reunify the . . . children with either parent clearly would be futile and would be inconsistent with the . . . children's health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time. No barriers to adoption are known. Adoption, rather than legal guardianship or other statutorily allowed permanency plan, is now the best permanency plan for the . . . children. The . . . children's placement is appropriate. DSS's efforts are as stated in its report.
In support of its order, the trial court also incorporated as findings of fact the facts contained in the DSS and GAL reports. The trial court further incorporated the findings of fact contained in the adjudication and dispositional orders and the permanency planning order into the permanency review order. The trial court then ordered DSS to "cease to make efforts to return the . . . children to the home of either parent." The trial court also ordered " hat the permanency plan for the . . . children shall be adoption." Respondent appeals.
I.
Respondent first argues " he trial court committed reversible error when it failed to conduct a proper permanencyplanning hearing statutorily mandated by N.C.G.S. § 7B-907 by accepting the unsworn statements of trial counsel and court reports as the only evidence presented at the hearing." Essentially, respondent argues that a trial court must receive sworn testimony at a permanency review hearing and cannot rely solely upon DSS and GAL written reports in making its order. Respondent's argument lacks merit.
At a permanency review hearing, a trial court "may consider any evidence, including hearsay evidence as defined in G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801, that the court finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907(b) (2003). Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-901 (2003), a trial court may consider written reports relating to the needs of the juvenile at a dispositional hearing. Our Court has held that " he written reports of social workers and psychiatrists, and other written material in the court's file are competent evidence in a dispositional or review hearing in juvenile cases." In re Shue, 63 N.C. App. 76, 79, 303 S.E.2d 636, 638 (1983), aff'd as modified by 311 N.C. 586, 319 S.E.2d 567 (1984).
Respondent relies upon In re D.L., 166 N.C. App. 574, 603 S.E.2d 376 (2004) in arguing that DSS and GAL reports are not sufficient competent evidence upon which to base the findings of fact in a permanency review order. However, respondent misreads In re D.L. In re D.L. is one of the latest in a line of cases in which our Court has held that, while a trial court may consider allwritten reports submitted in connection with juvenile proceedings, a trial court may not broadly incorporate the reports as its only findings of fact or use them as a substitute for the trial court's independent review. In re M.R.D.C., 166 N.C. App.
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.
|
|