 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
w hearing. The trial court incorporated the facts in those reports into its permanency review order as findings of fact. Additionally, the trial court used the reports to formulate its own findings of fact in its order. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b), discussed above, 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." Therefore, the trial court's consideration and use of the DSS and GAL reports was not in error.
Respondent also challenges finding ten. Respondent asserts finding ten is not supported by competent evidence because the psychological evaluation was not introduced into evidence at the permanency review hearing and was not incorporated into the permanency review order. However, the trial court stated in finding ten that " oday the court received a copy of the psychological evaluation of [respondent] signed December 22, 2003 by Gordon Cappelletty, Licensed Psychologist, and Janine [Szymanski], Licensed Psychological Associate." Furthermore, counsel for respondent asked the trial court to consider respondent's psychological evaluation by quoting from the report at the hearing. The GAL report also partially supports finding ten: "[Respondent] did report at the start of her psychological the first week of December that she continues to consume alcohol. [Respondent's] psychological reveals an individual who is alcohol dependent. She lied to the evaluator, Janine Szymanski when shereport she was in substance abuse treatment in December of 2003." Accordingly, finding ten is supported by competent record evidence.
Respondent next challenges finding eleven. Respondent first argues:
Finding of Fact No. 11 that [respondent] lost her driver's license due to an incident of driving while intoxicated is based on statements made by attorneys at the Permanency Review hearing relying on the GAL Court Report which indicates that the record is attached, but it was not included in the Record on Appeal.
As discussed above, N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b) allows a trial court to consider hearsay evidence in a permanency review hearing. This finding of fact is based upon the GAL report and is thus supported by competent evidence. Respondent also argues that the other statements in finding eleven came solely from statements made by respondent's counsel and are therefore not supported by competent evidence. Respondent is mistaken, except as to the last sentence of finding eleven. The last sentence reads: "[Respondent] has scheduled counseling but it has not yet begun." This statement comes from the comments of respondent's counsel at the hearing. However, this finding is not necessary to the ultimate determination that DSS's efforts to reunify the children with respondent should cease and the permanent plan should be adoption. The remainder of finding eleven is adequately supported by the DSS and GAL reports.
Respondent abandons her assignment of error as to finding twelve but makes a general challenge to the GAL report on theground that it was not signed by the GAL District Administrator, and therefore does not constitute credible or competent evidence. The GAL report was signed by the GAL Program Supervisor and the Attorney Advocate. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b), the trial court found the report to be reliable and relevant to the hearing through its incorporation of the report into its order. Therefore, respondent's argument lacks merit.
Finally, respondent challenges finding fifteen. Respondent abandons her sufficiency argument with respect to finding fifteen and argues
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.
|
|