{ "id": 8958605, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF KRISTOFOR SCOTT EVERETT, DOB 7/31/1993 and BRITTNEY NICOLE EVERETT, DOB 4/28/1994; THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner v. LISA RENEE EVERETT and ALFRED \"JUNIOR\" EVERETT, Respondents", "name_abbreviation": "Everett v. Everett", "decision_date": "2003-12-02", "docket_number": "No. COA03-316", "first_page": "475", "last_page": "481", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "161 N.C. App. 475" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683884 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "841", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 596, 319 S.E.2d 567, 573 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11433499 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 596, 319 S.E.2d 567, 573 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0187-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 687, "char_count": 15151, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.492797372752704e-07, "percentile": 0.6633434999492248 }, "sha256": "976ff1528b61d993e91b76ba25e19b9e1c8bef09e16f607b3388eaaf3a1f8097", "simhash": "1:c7e18507f60b9e02", "word_count": 2383 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:07.642184+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF KRISTOFOR SCOTT EVERETT, DOB 7/31/1993 and BRITTNEY NICOLE EVERETT, DOB 4/28/1994 THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner v. LISA RENEE EVERETT and ALFRED \u201cJUNIOR\u201d EVERETT, Respondents" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nAlfred \u201cJunior\u201d Everett (\u201crespondent\u201d) appeals the 20 September 2002 permanency planning order relieving New Hanover County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) from facilitating reunification efforts between the minor children and their father, respondent. Respondent appeals asserting the trial court\u2019s findings were not supported by competent evidence and the order did not comport with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b) and 7B-907(b). We agree and reverse the order of the trial court.\nRespondent and his wife Lisa Renee Everett (\u201cLisa\u201d) lived together with the minor children in Fayetteville until April 2001 when Lisa moved with the children to her mother and stepfather\u2019s home in Wilmington. Thereafter, on 21 June 2001, DSS filed a petition alleging Kristophor Scott Everett and Brittney Nicole Everett (\u201cthe children\u201d), both age seven, were abused, neglected and dependent children. The petition alleged both parents failed to provide \u201cproper care, supervision and discipline\u201d but no facts were alleged to support this allegation against respondent. Rather, the petition explained Lisa had abused them by \u201ckissing, licking and caressing pornographic materials\u201d in front of the children. The court found Lisa thereby sexually abused her children while living in Wilmington with her parents, and while respondent resided in Fayetteville with his parents. The children were taken into DSS custody and placed in foster homes.\nOn 21 and 24 August 2001, the court held an adjudicatory hearing. With regard to respondent, the court found as fact:\nAlfred Everett has limited mental capacities. Mr. Everett cannot read and write. He has no driver\u2019s license and could not obtain a license. Mr. Everett is not able independent of his mother and step-father or sisters or other capable adult to provide adequate care and supervision of his children.\nThe court adjudicated the children \u201cdependent and neglected\u201d as to their father, respondent, on the basis that:\n[in the Spring of 2001], Mr. Everett resided with his wife and children [in Fayetteville]. During this time there were occasions in which Mr. Everett was aware and observed Ms. Everett administer medication to the children inappropriately by giving the child more medicine than prescribed. . . . Mr. Everett cannot maintain a residence of his own or reside independently without the assistance of others in transportation and other matters.\nThe court ordered respondent to \u201chave a psychological evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation to determine the nature and extent of his limitations and his therapeutic needs . . . [and] to follow all recommendations for treatment.\u201d\nThereafter, the court conducted periodic review hearings. On 15 November 2001, the court held \u201c[t]hat reunification r\u00e9mains the plan but determination on the course and pace of reunification is deferred until receipt of the psychological and psychiatric evaluations of both parents.\u201d Respondent was ordered to obtain the evaluations and follow the recommendations. On 17 January 2002, the court found that respondent \u201chas been unable to obtain the evaluations from the Cumberland County Mental Health facility as of yet,\u201d although records reveal he had re-entered treatment there in an effort to comply with the court order. The court again held \u201c[t]hat reunification remains the plan but reunification is not possible at this time.\u201d\nIn February and March 2002, respondent obtained both psychological and psychiatric evaluations from the Cumberland County Mental Health Center. The psychological evaluation revealed that respondent has a Full Scale IQ score of 65, and lives with his mother and three of his other children. Although respondent is not able to work, he receives $545.00 per month in social security benefits. Despite respondent\u2019s prior drug and alcohol problem, he reported that he had not used either since 1993. The evaluator found no evidence of psychosis, delusional disorder, or depression. He noted respondent\u2019s \u201cinsight into his problems appeared to be extremely limited and his judgment is considered to be marginal due to intellectual limitation and tendency towards impulsivity.\u201d The evaluator raised concerns regarding respondent\u2019s ability to financially support and intellectually stimulate his children, especially considering the children\u2019s special needs. Nevertheless the evaluator recommended respondent \u201cbe referred for a parenting assessment to help clarify his ability to parent his children effectively\u201d and \u201ccould benefit from participating in a parenting class.\u201d The psychiatric evaluation also revealed no evidence of \u201cpsychiatric distress\u201d and listed his only limitation as his \u201cmental retardation.\u201d The evaluation concluded that \u201c[n]o further psychiatric intervention [is] indicated at the present time.\u201d Both evaluations concluded that respondent\u2019s abilities had not significantly changed since 1993, but respondent had changed his behavior, including ceasing drug and alcohol use and limiting his caffeine intake.\nDespite the evaluations concluding that respondent was not in need of treatment, DSS\u2019 report to the court preceding the permanency planning hearing reiterated that \u201cMr. Everett needs to come to terms with his mental health needs and be able to obtain treatment for himself.\u201d The report reasoned, \u201c[i]t is virtually impossible for either parent to parent their children without some consistent treatment for themselves which would include both individual and joint counseling with their children and a medication assessment.\u201d The report also commented, \u201cMr. Everett still verbalizes to the Department that he wants to have his children with him, but without him being able to understand his own mental health issues and needs, he cannot effectively parent his children who also have special needs.\u201d Therefore, DSS determined, \u201c[t]he Department feels that Mr. Everett needs to be in individual counseling to help him understand his needs and how he can best get his needs met.\u201d Lastly, and again directly contrary to the mental health professionals that evaluated respondent, DSS concluded, respondent \u201ccurrently is not receiving any therapy or medication treatment for his mental health needs. Mr. Everett needs to be involved with Cumberland County Mental Health to address his mental health needs.\u201d\nOn 30 May 2002, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The court found:\n3. . . . [T]he report of an evaluation by the Cumberland County Mental Health facility of Alfred Everett has been received. There is no significant change in the abilities of Mr. Everett as found in the recent evaluation and an evaluation of 1993. Mr. Everett is reported in both evaluations to have an IQ of 65, with limited ability to read and write.\n7. That both children have significant emotional, behavioral and educational needs. That Mr. Everett\u2019s limitations prevent him from being a placement resource for these children. It is in the children\u2019s best interests that the relationship with their father be maintained and visitation with Mr. Everett should continue to be provided.\nThe court then held on this basis that \u201c[t]he New Hanover County Department of Social Services is relieved of reunification efforts as to Mr. Everett.\u201d Prior to this time, the issue of reunification was always addressed to affect both parents, as a unit, as though the parents represented one household and one option for placement despite their separation and subsequent divorce.\nRespondent appeals asserting the trial court\u2019s findings of fact were not supported by the evidence and the order did not comport with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 7B-507(b) and 7B-907(b). We agree.\nThe purpose of a permanency planning hearing is \u201cto develop a plan to achieve a safe, permanent home for the juvenile within a reasonable period of time.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(a) (2001). In achieving this goal, the court may direct DSS to cease reunification efforts with a parent. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507 (2001). However, \u201c \u2018[o]ne of the essential aims, if not the essential aim, of. . . [the hearing] is to reunite the parent(s) and the child, after the child has been taken from the custody of the parent(s).\u2019 \u201d In re Ekard, 144 N.C. App. 187, 196, 547 S.E.2d 835, 841 (2001) (quoting In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 596, 319 S.E.2d 567, 573 (1984)). Accordingly, the court\u2019s authority to order the cessation of reunification efforts between a parent and a child is limited to where the court makes written findings of fact that:\n(1) Such efforts clearly would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile\u2019s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time;\n(2) A court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined in G.S. 7B-101;\n(3) A court of competent jurisdiction has terminated involuntarily the parental rights of the parent to another child of the parent; or\n(4) A court of competent jurisdiction has determined that: the parent has committed murder or voluntary' manslaughter of another child of the parent; has aided, abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child or another child of the parent; or has committed a felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b).\nIn the case at bar, none of the court\u2019s findings addressed the four reasons required to cease reunification efforts between respondent and his children. Rather, the court explained \u201c[t]hat Mr. Everett\u2019s limitations prevent him from being a placement resource for these children\u201d due to their special needs. While this reasoning most closely relates to a finding that \u201c[reunification] efforts clearly would be futile,\u201d the court made no such finding and therefore failed to comport with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b).\nEven assuming arguendo the court intended its finding that respondent\u2019s limitations prevented reunification, the evidence in the record would not support this finding. The only action requested by DSS in their effort to reunite respondent with his children was that respondent obtain a mental health evaluation and follow the treatment recommendations. Respondent was evaluated by the mental health center, who recommended both a parenting assessment \u201cto help clarify his ability to parent his children effectively\u201d and \u201ca parenting class\u201d to help him apply better parenting skills. However, at the hearing, the DSS social worker explained that DSS chose not to follow these suggestions, instead determining, based upon their interactions with him, that his limitations would prevent him from being able to apply what he learns from a parenting class to his parenting of the children. The social worker further admitted that the only efforts DSS made towards reunification with respondent was \u201cgetting him to have the psychological and psychiatric evaluation.\u201d The social worker explained that because respondent cannot drive and lives far away that'he wasn\u2019t included in the children\u2019s therapy, but rather \u201cmainly the focus has been with Lisa because she\u2019s here in town;\u201d adding that had respondent also lived in Wilmington she believed \u201cwe certainly would have probably tried to make him more a part of the case.\u201d Finally, the social worker explained that because respondent has a limited ability to read and write, and his children have special educational needs, that he would be unable to meet their needs and could not be a placement option. Accordingly, the record reveals that DSS never pursued reunification efforts with respondent, or properly evaluated his parenting capabilities. Therefore, the record would not support a finding that reunification was futile under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(l).\nFinally, we note our statute requires certain findings of fact be made at permanency planning hearings. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(b) (2001). First, the court must determine \u201c[w]hether it is possible for the juvenile to return home immediately or within the next six months. . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(b)(l). The court must explain why, and if the juvenile will not be returning home within six months, there are other required findings. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(b)(l)-(6). The court found that although \u201creunification with Lisa Everett Simpson remains the plan but reunification is not imminent.\u201d Neither this finding nor the other findings comport with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907.\nAccordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court finding it failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 7B-507 and 7B-907, and the evidence does not support the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law that reunification efforts between respondent and his children should cease.\nReversed.\nJudges McGEE and HUDSON concur.\n. In 1993 respondent consumed two cups of coffee and twenty-four cans of Coca Cola in one-half of a day. At that time respondent was having trouble sleeping, had bad nerves and was \u201cimplosive and explosive.\u201d In the 2002 report, his caffeine intake had reduced to two to three cups of coffee and three cans of Mountain Dew per day. Respondent was no longer having trouble sleeping and there was no indication of his prior behavioral issues.\n. The trial court did find as fact: \u201c2. That pursuant to Order of 18 October 2001, for 24 August 2001, the children were determined to be as to their mother, Lisa Everett, abused, neglected and dependent children and as to their father, Alfred Everett, neglected and dependent children.\u201d Although this finding of fact states, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(2), that \u201c[a] court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined in G.S. 7B-101,\u201d the order delineates the reason for the cessation of reasonable efforts was respondent\u2019s limitations and not the prior adjudication. Accordingly, although by way of delineating the history of the case, the court made a finding regarding the prior adjudication of neglect and dependency, since this finding was historical reference and not judicial reasoning, we recognize it may not now be considered as such to fulfill the N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b) requirements.", "type": "majority", "author": "CALABRIA, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief filed for petitioner-appellee or Guardian ad Litem.", "A. Michelle FormyDuval, for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF KRISTOFOR SCOTT EVERETT, DOB 7/31/1993 and BRITTNEY NICOLE EVERETT, DOB 4/28/1994 THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner v. LISA RENEE EVERETT and ALFRED \u201cJUNIOR\u201d EVERETT, Respondents\nNo. COA03-316\n(Filed 2 December 2003)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 reunification \u2014 order allowing efforts to end\nAn order relieving DSS from efforts to reunify respondent and his children was reversed because it did not comply with N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 7B-507 and 7B-907 and because the evidence did not support the conclusion that reunification efforts should cease.\nAppeal by respondent Alfred \u201cJunior\u201d Everett from order entered 20 September 2002 by Judge Shelly Sveda Holt in New Hanover County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 October 2003.\nNo brief filed for petitioner-appellee or Guardian ad Litem.\nA. Michelle FormyDuval, for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0475-01", "first_page_order": 505, "last_page_order": 511 }