IN MATTER OF P.A.N.Y., COA10-1269 (N.C.App. 3-15-2011)

711 S.E.2d 207

No. COA10-1269North Carolina Court of Appeals
Filed 15 March 2011 This case not for publication

Haywood County No. 08 JT 80.

Appeal by respondent-mother from an order entered 4 August 2010 by Judge Monica H. Leslie in Haywood County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 February 2011.

Rachael J. Hawes for petitioner-appellee Haywood County Department of Social Services.
Leslie C. Rawls for respondent-appellant mother.
Pamela Newell for guardian ad litem.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, P.A.N.Y. We affirm the order of the Haywood County District Court.

Haywood County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed a juvenile petition on 29 May 2008 alleging that P.A.N.Y. was a neglected and dependent juvenile. DSS obtained nonsecure custody of P.A.N.Y. on 28 May 2008 and placed her in foster care. In an order entered 7 October 2008, P.A.N.Y. was adjudicated neglected and dependent. The trial court relieved DSS of its requirement to make reasonable efforts to reunify P.A.N.Y. with respondent-mother

Page 2

in a permanency planning order entered 15 June 2009, and on 12 November 2009, the trial court changed the permanent plan from reunification to adoption. On 13 January 2010, DSS filed a petition to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights, alleging the following grounds: (1) neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2009); (2) failure to make reasonable progress pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(2) (2009); and (3) dependency pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(6) (2009). Following a hearing held on 21 July 2010, the trial court entered an order on 4 August 2010 concluding that all three grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights. In a separate order entered the same day, the trial court determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in P.A.N.Y.’s best interest. Respondent-mother gave timely notice of appeal.

Respondent-mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief on respondent-mother’s behalf in which counsel states that she “has conducted a conscientious and thorough review of the Record on Appeal and all material in the underlying case files” and “has concluded that this appeal presents no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief and that the appeal is frivolous.” Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.1(d), she requests that this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(d). Respondent-mother has not filed her own written arguments.

In addition to seeking review pursuant to Rule 3.1(d), counsel directs our attention to the following potential issues:

Page 3

(1) whether the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that P.A.N.Y. was neglected; (2) whether the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that respondent-mother failed to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions which led to removal; (3) whether the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that P.A.N.Y. was a dependent juvenile; (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that P.A.N.Y.’s best interest was served by termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights; and (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent-mother’s motion to continue the termination hearing. Counsel acknowledges, however, that advancing these issues on appeal would not alter the ultimate result.

After carefully reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial court’s order. The trial court’s findings of fact support at least one ground for termination, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination is in the best interest of P.A.N.Y. or in denying respondent-mother’s motion to continue.

Accordingly, following careful review of the record, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights as to P.A.N.Y.

Affirmed.

Judges STROUD and ERVIN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Page 1