 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re K.N.O.11/1/2005
that it does not comply with the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-907(b). Respondent's argument fails for the reasons discussed in the previous section.
IV.
Respondent lastly argues the trial court erred by removing respondent's counsel and appointing substitute counsel one month before the permanency review hearing, thereby depriving respondent of effective assistance of counsel. A parent is entitled to counsel in proceedings under article 9 of the Juvenile Code. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-602(a) (2003). Furthermore, the right to counsel implicitly guarantees a right to effective assistance of counsel. In re Faircloth, 153 N.C. App. 565, 571, 571 S.E.2d 65, 70 (2002). "To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [respondent] 'must show that counsel's performance was deficient and the deficiency was so serious as to deprive [respondent] of a fair hearing.'" Id. (quoting In re Bishop, 92 N.C. App. 662, 665, 375 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1989)). Here, respondent argues that Ms. Eaker, her counsel was "woefully unprepared, and obviously unfamiliar with [respondent's] case." However, the transcript shows that respondent's counsel made a reasoned argument to the trial court and was able to respond to the trial court's questions. Furthermore, the trial court continued the permanency review hearing from 29 June 2004 to 2 July 2004 to give respondent's counsel time to prepare. Respondent next makes a general argument that her counsel made "prejudicial statements that revealed information to the trial [court] that cast [respondent] in unfavorable light[.]" However, respondent does not specifically challenge any of her counsel's statements. Upon review of the transcript, respondent's counsel did not reveal any damaging information that was not already included in the DSS and GAL reports already before the trial court. Respondent also claims her representation was deficient because her counsel failed to object to the trial court's questioning of trial counsel. However, respondent does not allege that she was deprived of the opportunity to present testimony at the hearing. Respondent apparently chose to have her counsel speak on her behalf, and respondent cannot now assert error as a result of that choice. Finally, respondent has failed to demonstrate how any alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance deprived her of a fair hearing. Accordingly, we overrule this assignment of error.
Affirmed.
Judges McCULLOUGH and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|