 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
693, 698, 603 S.E.2d 890, 893 (2004), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 321, 611 S.E.2d 413 (2005); In re J.S., 165 N.C. App. 509, 511, 598 S.E.2d 658, 660 (2004); In re Harton, 156 N.C. App. 655, 660, 577 S.E.2d 334, 337 (2003). Our Court stated in In re D.L. that
he adoption of the DSS summary into the Order insufficient to constitute competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of facts.
As no evidence was presented by either DSS or [the respondent mother] regarding the permanency plan, the trial court's findings of fact are unsupported. Without any evidence to support its findings, the trial court erred in its conclusions of law.
In re D.L., 166 N.C. App. at 583, 603 S.E.2d at 382 (emphasis in original).
In the present case, the DSS and GAL reports were competent evidence introduced at the permanency review hearing. The trial court incorporated facts contained in the DSS and GAL reports and prior orders as findings of fact in its permanency review order. The trial court also made fifteen additional findings of fact. Unlike In re D.L., the trial court in this case did not broadly incorporate the facts in the reports as its only findings of fact or use the reports as a substitute for its own independent review. Therefore, the trial court did not err.
II.
Respondent next argues the trial court erred by failing to make specific and ultimate findings of fact in compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507. We disagree. Where a juvenile is not returned home at the conclusion of a permanency review hearing, N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b) requires a trial court to consider the following criteria and make written findings regarding those that are relevant:
(1) Whether it is possible for the juvenile to be returned home immediately or within the next six months, and if not, why it is not in the juvenile's best interests to return home;
(2) Where the juvenile's return home is unlikely within six months, whether legal guardianship or custody with a relative or some other suitable person should be established, and if so, the rights and responsibilities which should remain with the parents;
(3) Where the juvenile's return home is unlikely within six months, whether adoption should be pursued and if so, any barriers to the juvenile's adoption;
(4) Where the juvenile's return home is unlikely within six months, whether the juvenile should remain in the current placement or be placed in another permanent living arrangement and why;
(5) Whether the county department of social services has since the initial permanency plan hearing made reasonable efforts to implement the permanent plan for the juvenile;
(6) Any other criteria the court deems necessary.
In the present case, the trial court made sufficient findings of fact in compliance with N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b). "A permanency planning order need not 'contain a formal listing of the G.S. § 7B-907(b)(1)-(6) factors, expressly denominated as such . . . aslong as the trial court makes findings of fact on the relevant G.S. § 7B-907(b) factors[.]'" In re M.R.D.C., 166 N.C. App. at 696, 603 S.E.2d at 892 (quoting In re J.C.S., 164 N.C. App. 96, 106, 595 S.E.2d 155, 161 (2004), overruled on other grounds by In re R.T.W., 359 N.C. 539, 614 S.E.2d 489 (2005)). A trial court must "'find the ultimate facts essential to support the conclusions of law'" regarding the relevant N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b) factors "'through processes of logical reasoning from the evidentiary facts[.]'" In re J.C.S., 164 N.C. App. at 106, 595 S.E.2d at 161 (quoting In re Harton, 156 N.C. App. at 660, 577 S.E.2d at 337)
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.
|
|