{ "id": 8301018, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: D.S., S.S., F.S., M.M., M.S.", "name_abbreviation": "In re D.S.", "decision_date": "2006-04-04", "docket_number": "No. COA05-977", "first_page": "136", "last_page": "140", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "177 N.C. App. 136" } ], "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": "612 S.E.2d 436", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632830 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633576, 12633575 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0538-02", "/se2d/616/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9005766 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1110", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3798082, 3795365, 3797350, 3794823, 3804744, 3796621, 3795799 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0632-01", "/nc/359/0632-04", "/nc/359/0632-03", "/nc/359/0632-07", "/nc/359/0632-06", "/nc/359/0632-02", "/nc/359/0632-05" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" }, { "page": "427" }, { "page": "426" }, { "page": "427" }, { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8470251 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "604 S.E.2d 314", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793476, 3799505, 3801974, 3800535, 3795417, 3797691, 3800412, 3797917 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0068-03", "/nc/359/0068-04", "/nc/359/0068-05", "/nc/359/0068-08", "/nc/359/0068-02", "/nc/359/0068-01", "/nc/359/0068-07", "/nc/359/0068-06" ] }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390", "parenthetical": "order entered eighty-nine days after the hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8997210 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315", "parenthetical": "order entered eighty-nine days after the hearing" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11889393 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9188208 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0491-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 454, "char_count": 8301, "ocr_confidence": 0.773, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.349814387588305e-08, "percentile": 0.5139274529132779 }, "sha256": "28d18b41213094612d58036478c8420255b8d71e9acaedd284822ecac5217b0b", "simhash": "1:8ea36e2a524f2257", "word_count": 1341 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:29.259677+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MCCULLOUGH and LEVINSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: D.S., S.S., F.S., M.M., M.S." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nS.S. (\u201crespondent\u201d) appeals from order entered terminating her parental rights to her minor children, D.S., S.S., F.S., M.M., and M.S. We reverse and remand.\nI. Background\nOn 5 October 2001, a non-secure custody order was entered for legal custody of respondent\u2019s five minor children. Respondent\u2019s three oldest children were placed in foster care.\nRespondent appeared pro se at the 8 October 2001 hearing on the need for continued non-secure custody of the three oldest children. Respondent denied allegations of neglect and asserted it was in her children\u2019s best interests to reside in her home or in the home of her children\u2019s great grandparents. Respondent requested assistance of counsel. The court ordered the three oldest children remain in non-secure custody of the New Hanover County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d).\nOn 13 December 2001, the adjudication hearing was held. Respondent was represented by counsel. The court conclud\u00e9d respondent\u2019s five children were neglected and dependent.\nA review hearing was held on 7 March 2002. The court permitted the return of respondent\u2019s two youngest children to her home. Respondent\u2019s three oldest children remained in non-secure custody.\nOn 23 May 2002, the court convened a hearing for review of the prior order. To reunify her family, respondent was ordered to: (1) complete her GED; (2) satisfy the requirements of the Work First Program; (3) obtain a psychological evaluation; and (4) cooperate with DSS to assure her children\u2019s mental health needs were met. The court concluded the legal custody of her five children remain with DSS for continued placement of her three oldest children. The court ordered the children not to be in the presence of their maternal great-grandfather.\nOn 15 August 2002, the court: (1) determined respondent failed to satisfy the obligations contained in the prior order; (2) granted physical custody of the two youngest children to DSS; and (3) retained the cause for a permanency planning hearing.\nOn 21 November 2002, the court convened a permanency planning hearing. The court concluded, \u201cthe permanent plan for the above-named children shall be adoption.\u201d\nOn 30 September 2003, DSS petitioned to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights. The termination hearing was held 16 and 17 February 2004 and the court terminated respondent\u2019s parental rights. The trial court reduced its order to writing and signed it on 22 September 2004. Respondent appeals.\nII.Issues\nRespondent argues the trial court erred by: (1) failing to reduce its order to writing within the statutorily prescribed time limit; (2) terminating her parental rights in the absence of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (3) terminating her parental rights when it was not in the best interests of the minor children.\nIII.Standard of Review\nOn appeal, our standard of review for the termination of parental rights is whether the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. In re Baker, 158 N.C. App. 491, 493, 581 S.E.2d 144, 146 (2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted).\nThe trial court\u2019s \u201cconclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.\u201d Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding and Ins. Servs., 124 N.C. App. 332, 336, 477 S.E.2d 211, 215 (1996).\nIV.Order in Writing\nRespondent argues the trial court erred when it failed to reduce its order to writing, sign, and enter it within the statutorily prescribed time period. We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1111(a) (2005) provides, \u201c[a]ny order shall be reduced to writing, signed, and entered no later than 30 days following the completion of the termination of parental rights hearing.\u201d\nThis Court has previously stated that absent a showing of prejudice, the trial court\u2019s failure to reduce to writing, sign, and enter a termination order beyond the thirty day time window may be harmless error. See In re J.L.K., 165 N.C. App. 311, 315, 598 S.E.2d 387, 390 (2004) (order entered eighty-nine days after the hearing), disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 68, 604 S.E.2d 314 (2004).\nIn re L.E.B., K.T.B., 169 N.C. App. 375, 378-79, 610 S.E.2d 424, 426, disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 632, 616 S.E.2d 538 (2005).\nThis Court has held a delay of the entry of order of six months was \u201cprejudicial to respondent-mother, the minors, and the foster parent.\u201d Id. at 380, 610 S.E.2d at 427.\nRespondent-mother, the minors, and the foster parent did not receive an immediate, final decision in a life altering situation for all parties. Respondent-mother could not appeal until \u201centry of the order.\u201d If adoption becomes the ordered permanent plan for the minors, the foster parent must wait even longer to commence the adoption proceedings. The minors are prevented from settling into a permanent family environment until the order is entered and the time for any appeals has expired.\nId. at 379, 610 S.E.2d at 426.\nHere, the termination of parental rights hearing was held on 16 and 17 February 2004. Respondent\u2019s trial counsel entered a purported notice of appeal on 8 June 2004 and formally requested the trial court reduce its order to writing, sign, and enter it. The trial court reduced its order to writing in September 2004. Although the file-stamp on the termination order is illegible on the copy in the record on appeal and on the original in the office of the New Hanover County Clerk of Superior Court, the trial court\u2019s signature line is preceded by a date line. The trial court marked the date line as \u201c22 September 2004.\u201d The order could not have been entered prior to that date. Id. The trial court failed to reduce its order to writing until approximately seven months after the termination hearing.\nRespondent argues the delay prejudiced all members of the family involved, as well as the foster and adoptive parents. By failing to reduce its order to writing within the statutorily prescribed time period, \u201cthe parent and child have lost time together, the foster parents are in a state of flux, and the adoptive parents are not able to complete their family plan.\u201d \u201cThe delay of over six months to enter the adjudication and disposition order terminating respondent-mother\u2019s parental rights prejudiced all parties, not just respondent-mother.\u201d Id. at 380, 610 S.E.2d at 427.\n\u201cThis late entry is a clear and egregious violation of both N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1109(e), N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1110(a), and this Court\u2019s well-established interpretation of the General Assembly\u2019s use of the word \u2018shall.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 378, 610 S.E.2d at 426.\nV. Conclusion\nThe trial court erred when it failed to reduce its order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights to writing and enter it within the statutorily prescribed time limit. See In re T.L.T., 170 N.C. App. 430, 432, 612 S.E.2d 436, 448 (2005) (\u201c[T]he trial court entered its order approximately seven months after the conclusion of the termination hearing. . . . Therefore, as we recognized in In re L.E.B., the trial court\u2019s failure to enter its termination order in a timely manner affected not only respondent, but also Thomas, his foster parents, and his potential adoptive parents.\u201d). This trial court\u2019s order is reversed, and this case is remanded. In light of our decision, we do not address respondent\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges MCCULLOUGH and LEVINSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief filed for petitioner-appellee New Hanover County Department of Social Services.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Murray C. Greason, III, for petitioner-appellee Guardian ad Litem.", "Lisa Skinner Lefler, for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: D.S., S.S., F.S., M.M., M.S.\nNo. COA05-977\n(Filed 4 April 2006)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 timeliness of order \u2014 prejudicial error\nThe trial court erred by failing to reduce its order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights to writing, sign, and enter it within the statutorily prescribed time period under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-llll(a), and the trial court\u2019s order is reversed and remanded because the delay of over six months to enter the adjudication and disposition order prejudiced all parties.\nAppeal by respondent mother from order entered 22 September 2004 by Judge J.H. Corpening, II, in New Hanover County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 March 2006.\nNo brief filed for petitioner-appellee New Hanover County Department of Social Services.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Murray C. Greason, III, for petitioner-appellee Guardian ad Litem.\nLisa Skinner Lefler, for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0136-01", "first_page_order": 170, "last_page_order": 174 }