 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
nt's visitation with the children. Finding ten sets out the determinations of respondent's psychological evaluation, which was facilitated by DSS. Finally, findings eleven, twelve and fifteen detail DSS's efforts toward procuring substance abuse treatment for respondent.
The trial court also complied with N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(a) (2003), which requires:
An order placing or continuing the placement of a juvenile in the custody or placementresponsibility of a county department of social services, whether an order for continued non-secure custody, a dispositional order, or a review order:
(2) Shall contain findings as to whether a county department of social services has made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for placement of the juvenile, unless the court has previously determined under subsection (b) of this section that such efforts are not required or shall cease[.]
As with N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b), it is not necessary for a permanency review order to contain a formal listing of the N.C.G.S. § 7B-507 criteria. See In re M.R.D.C., 166 N.C. App. at 696, 603 S.E.2d at 892. The determination of whether DSS has made reasonable efforts to prevent placement of children out of their parents' home is a conclusion of law. In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510-11, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675-76 (1997). An analysis of the trial court's findings under N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(a)(2) parallels the analysis of N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b)(5) discussed above. The trial court complied with N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(a)(2) through findings 7, 10, 11, 12, and 15, which address the reasonable efforts undertaken by DSS to prevent placement of the children. The trial court then specifically concluded that " has exercised reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for continued placement out of the parents' home."
III.
Respondent next argues the findings of fact are not supported by sufficient evidence. Our review of a permanency review order islimited to whether the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record and whether the findings support the conclusions. In re J.C.S., 164 N.C. App. at 106, 595 S.E.2d at 161. Findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if they are supported by competent evidence. In re Weiler, 158 N.C. App. 473, 477, 581 S.E.2d 134, 137 (2003).
Respondent specifically assigns error to findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15. Respondent asserts that findings one, two, three and four merely restate the history of the case and respondent thereby abandons her sufficiency argument with respect to those findings. Respondent does, however, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that " o relative placements [were] suitable." Our review of the record on appeal shows support for this finding. In a DSS Dispositional Hearing Report dated 8 September 2003, which was made part of the case files, DSS addressed placement of the children:
A variety of relative placement options have been explored by . Two home studies were initiated, but Krissina Dale and Todd McDaniel have now reported they do not want to be considered for placement.
SW Beaver had an appointment on May 7, 2003 to complete a home study on Shannon Collins, sister to [respondent]. Ms. Collins has a daughter with Ring 13, a genetic disorder, and would be unable to provide care for the girls.
Therefore, finding two is supported by competent record evidence.
Respondent asserts that findings six, seven and eight are improperly based on hearsay statements in the DSS and GAL reports. The trial court received those reports into evidence at the 2 July2004 permanency revie
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.
|
|