In re: B.C., A.B.W.

Opinions

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-474

Filed 18 February 2026

Duplin County, Nos. 24JA000037-300, 24JA000038-300, 25CVD000054-300, 25CVD000055-300

IN THE MATTERS OF: B.C., A.B.W.

Appeal by respondent-mother from 90 Day Review Orders and the resulting

Child Custody Orders entered 8 January 2025 by Judge Morgan H. Swinson in

Duplin County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2026.

Parent Defender Wendy C. Sotolongo, by Senior Assistant Parent Defender J. Lee Gilliam, for appellant-respondent-mother.

Joint brief filed by Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, by M. Duane Jones, for Guardian ad Litem, and The Law Office of J. Blake Phillips, PLLC, by J. Blake Phillips, for Duplin County Department of Social Services.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Respondent-mother (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s 90 Day Review

Order and Child Custody Order granting permanent custody of her children Anna

and Ben1 to their fathers. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in

1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of the minor children.

Opinion of the Court

part and remand for additional findings of fact.

I. Background

On 7 June 2024, Mother experienced a suspected episode of paranoid

schizophrenia and was driving dangerously. She was approached by an officer who

observed Anna, Ben, and their half-brother Adam sitting unrestrained in her car.

Mother exhibited erratic behavior and explained that she believed everyone was

trying to kill her and the children. The incident prompted a protective services report

to the Duplin County Department of Social Services (“DSS”). It was the fourth report

made concerning Mother and her children since May 2024 and DSS got involved with

the family.

That same day, Mother was involuntarily committed to the hospital where she

tested positive for methamphetamines and marijuana. Meanwhile, the children were

temporarily placed with family members. Anna was placed with her father, Mr. W.

Ben and Adam were placed with their maternal aunt. DSS filed neglect petitions and

received nonsecure custody of the children on 12 June 2024. Thereafter, the children

continued to reside with the same guardians, and Mother was allowed one hour of

visitation with the children per week.

On 3 July 2024, DSS filed amended juvenile petitions and the trial court held

a hearing to determine the need for continued nonsecure custody. The trial court

released nonsecure custody of Anna and Ben but kept responsibility for the placement

and care of the children with DSS. Ben was placed with his paternal grandfather

-2-

until 17 July 2024 when he was placed with his father, Mr. C. Anna continued her

placement with her father, Mr. W. Mother was allowed one hour of visitation per

week.

Anna and Ben were adjudicated neglected following a hearing on

6 November 2024. Both children continued to be placed with their respective fathers,

which DSS reported had been going well. The court granted Mother ten hours of

supervised visits with the children and ordered a case plan that included

comprehensive clinical and substance abuse assessments, consent to random drug

screens by DSS, and maintaining contact with DSS.

On 8 January 2025, the trial court held a “Review/Permanency Planning

Hearing.” Isabelle Sarmiento, a social worker involved with the family, testified at

the hearing. Sarmiento testified that Mother’s visits with Ben and Anna had been

going well. Additionally, she stated that Mother was following the DSS’s case plan

and she had no concerns about Mother harming the children. However, Sarmiento

also testified that Mother was living with her aunt and did not have stable housing

to accommodate the children. Additionally, at her drug screenings, Mother continued

to test positive for marijuana.

DSS also submitted a court report detailing the parties’ progress on the case

plans and providing information about the children’s placements. The report stated

that Anna was doing well with her father, Mr. W, and his live-in girlfriend. The

report did not contain any additional information about Mr. W’s girlfriend or any

-3-

indication that she had undergone a specific vetting process. DSS recommended that

Mr. W be granted custody of Anna and Mr. C be granted custody of Ben.

After the hearing, the trial court issued a “90 Day Review Order” awarding

custody of Anna and Ben to their fathers, Mr. W and Mr. C, respectively. The court

granted secondary custody in the form of visitation and telephonic communication to

Mother. Additionally, the trial court determined that there was “no longer a need for

continued State intervention on behalf of the Juvenile[s] through a juvenile court

proceeding” and transferred the case to a civil proceeding under Chapter 50. Mother

filed notice of appeal to this court on 14 February 2025.

II. Discussion

Mother raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred when it

placed the case on a review hearing track when custody had been removed from

Mother; 2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Mr. W full

custody of Anna without vetting the other adult who lived in the home; and 3)

whether the trial court erred when it transferred a juvenile neglect proceeding to a

civil custody proceeding without making proper findings. We address each argument

in turn.

A. Standard of Review

“We review an order’s compliance with statutory requirements de novo.” In re

S.M.L., 272 N.C. App. 499, 517 (2020) (citation omitted). “Under a de novo review,

the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that

-4-

of the trial court.” In re E.E., 294 N.C. App. 133, 136 (2024) (citation omitted). We

review a trial court’s dispositional choices in a permanency planning order for abuse

of discretion. In re K.P., 383 N.C. 292, 302 (2022). “An abuse of discretion results

where the court’s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that

it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Id. (quoting In re T.L.H.,

368 N.C. 101, 107 (2015) (extraneity omitted)).

B. Permanency Planning Hearing

Mother argues that because custody of Ben and Anna had been removed from

her, she was entitled to, but deprived of, a permanency hearing under N.C.G.S. §§

7B-906.1 to -906.2 (2025). DSS does not contest that Mother was entitled to a

permanency hearing. Rather, DSS argues that though the order was labeled a “90

Day Review Order”, the trial court’s hearing and order met all the requirements of a

permanency hearing, therefore satisfying § 7B-906.2.

N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(a) requires the trial court to conduct either a review

hearing or a permanency planning hearing within 90 days of an initial disposition

hearing. It further explains that “[i]f custody has not been removed from a

parent, . . . the hearing shall be designated as a review hearing. If custody has been

removed from a parent, . . . the hearing shall be designated as a permanency

planning hearing.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(a). Whether a hearing is a review hearing

or a permanency planning hearing depends more on the substance and function of

-5-

the hearing than the title assigned to the hearing and accompanying order. See In re

J.B., 197 N.C. App. 497, 503 (2009).

Review hearings and permanency planning hearings share similar

characteristics and requirements under N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1. However, N.C.G.S.

§ 7B-906.2 provides specific guidance and additional requirements for permanency

planning hearings. For example, it requires that the court adopt one or more from a

list of permanent plans, which includes “[c]ustody to a relative or other suitable

person.” N.C.G.S. §7B-906.2(a). It also requires that the court implement concurrent

planning until a permanent plan is or has been achieved. Id. §7B-906.2(a1). At least

one of the plans should be reunification, unless the court makes certain written

findings or a permanent plan has been achieved. Id. §7B-906.2(b).

Where reunification is not a part of the permanent plans, the court must make

written findings on four factors which demonstrate the degree of success or failure

toward reunification:

(1) Whether the parent is making adequate progress within a reasonable period of time under the plan.

(2) Whether the parent is actively participating in or cooperating with the plan, the department, and the guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

(3) Whether the parent remains available to the court, the department, and the guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

(4) Whether the parent is acting in a manner inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile.

-6-

Id. §7B-906.2(d). The trial court need not recite the statutory language verbatim but

“the order must make clear that the trial court considered the evidence in light of

whether reunification would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s

health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of

time.” In re C.H., 381 N.C. 745, 755 (2022).

Here, despite mislabeling the order, the trial court satisfied all of the

requirements of a permanency planning hearing. The hearing itself was conducted

as a “Review/Permanency Planning Hearing” and the parties testified as to whether

a permanent plan had been achieved by placing Ben and Anna with their fathers.

Indeed, placement with the child’s father is a permissible permanent plan under

N.C.G.S. §7B-906.2(a).

Additionally, the trial court made all the requisite findings in order to

eliminate reunification with Mother as a permanent plan. In its “90 Day Review

Orders” for both Ben and Anna, the trial court made the following pertinent findings

of fact:

10. That the Respondent Mother was previously Ordered to submit to random drug screens as requested by the Department. The Respondent Mother continues to test positive for illicit substances as of her last drug screen on December 13, 2024. 11. That the Respondent Mother completed comprehensive clinical assessment on November 12, 2024, and was diagnosed as follows:

a. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder - Chronic; b. Cannabis Use - Unspecified with anxiety; and c. Opioid use - Unspecified, in remission.

-7-

12. That the Respondent Mother is participating in therapy once a week. 13. That the Respondent Mother is employed. 14. That the Respondent Mother does not have reliable transportation. 15. That the Respondent Mother currently lives in the home of her aunt in Bladen County, North Carolina. The aunt will not allow any of the children to live in the home full time but does consent to visitation occurring at the home. 16. That the Respondent Mother is has [sic] not completed her case plan and does not have a home suitable for the placement of the Juvenile at this time. 17. That the Respondent Mother is participating in or cooperating with the plan, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Guardian ad Litem for the Juvenile. 18. That the Respondent Mother remains available to the Court, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Guardian ad Litem for the Juvenile. .... 28. That the conditions which led to the removal of the Juvenile from the Respondent Mother still exists and that return of the Juvenile to said home would be contrary to the welfare of the Juvenile.

Findings 10–16 describe Mother’s progress in the case plan and toward reunification,

satisfying §7B-906.2(d)(1). Additionally, Findings 17 and 18 track the language of

and satisfy §7B-906.2(d)(2)–(3). Lastly, Finding 28 demonstrates that the court

considered whether Mother was acting in a manner inconsistent with the safety of

the juveniles, thereby satisfying §7B-906.2(d)(4).

Because a permanent plan of custody to a relative had been achieved, and the

trial court made the necessary findings to show that reunification with Mother would

be contrary to the juveniles’ health or safety, the trial court properly eliminated

-8-

reunification with Mother as a permanent plan and met the requirements of a

permanency planning hearing under §7B-906.2. See In re K.P., 383 N.C. at 305.

Mother did not argue that the trial court’s findings were unsupported or otherwise

failed to satisfy §7B-906.2. Thus, though the order was titled “90 Day Review Order,”

we hold that Mother received a permanency planning hearing. Accordingly, the trial

court did not err by conducting the wrong hearing.

C. Custody of Anna

Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Mr. W full

custody of Anna when it had no information regarding Mr. W’s girlfriend who lived

in the home. Mother contends that all adults living in a home should be assessed

before custody is granted in the home. Mother cites several cases where this Court

has considered a lack of information regarding other adults in the home when

determining if a grant of custody or termination of parental rights was appropriate.

For example, in In re A.H., No. COA15-1177, 2016 WL 2865063, at *3 (N.C. Ct.

App. May 17, 2016), this Court remanded an order granting custody to a father living

in Mexico after identifying several insufficiencies in the trial court’s findings. There,

the father had recently been deported and the children had never resided with him

in Mexico. Id. at *1–3. The father had testified that he would be living with at least

three other family members and the trial court “made no findings as to the

appropriateness” of those people. Id. at*3, *3 n.4. Additionally, the trial court failed

to consider how sending the children to live in another country would affect them,

-9-

whether the schools could accommodate the children’s needs, and if any services

would be available to the children in Mexico. Id. at *3.

In In re R.A.X., 298 N.C. App. 341, 357 (2025), this Court affirmed the

termination of a father’s parental rights where he was unable to provide safe and

stable housing for the child. The trial court made several findings supporting its

determination including that the father lived with an “unknown number of unknown

adults.” Id. at 350. The social worker had not met any of the other residents of the

home and the father had not provided their names or other identifying information.

Id. at 345. Additionally, the father was sleeping on the couch and did not have a

formal rental or lease agreement. Id.

Though In re A.H. and In re R.A.X. demonstrate that the presence of unvetted

adults in the home may be a consideration in custody determinations, those cases are

distinguishable from the present matter. First, in both In re A.H. and In re R.A.X.,

the presence of unvetted adults in the home was just one factor among many

considered by this Court. Here, Mother does not present any additional factors

showing that Mr. W’s home was not suitable or that awarding custody of Anna to Mr.

W was not in Anna’s best interest.

Second, Mr. W’s girlfriend was vetted more than the other adults in In re A.H.

and In re R.A.X., and the trial court clearly considered her presence in the home. The

identity of Mr. W’s girlfriend and her presence in the home was known to DSS.

Additionally, Anna had been residing with Mr. W and his girlfriend for several

- 10 -

months when the trial court issued its order. In a report dated 8 January 2025, DSS

stated that “[Anna] continues to do well with her father, [Mr. W] and live in

girlfriend.” The trial court incorporated that report into its findings. The trial court

also found that “the home of [Mr. W] is safe, suitable, and appropriate for [Anna].”

Thus, the trial court made supported findings concerning Mr. W’s live in girlfriend

and the suitability of his home for Anna. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in granting custody of Anna to Mr. W without requiring

Mr. W’s girlfriend to undergo a more extensive vetting process.

D. Transfer to a Civil Custody Proceeding

Finally, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it transferred the case

from a juvenile neglect proceeding to a civil custody proceeding without making

proper findings. Specifically, Mother contends that the trial court 1) did not make

adequate findings regarding the need for continued state intervention, and 2) needed

more specific findings to support the entry of a custody order under Chapter 50. After

careful consideration, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part for entry of

additional findings of fact.

1. Need for Continued State Intervention

N.C.G.S. § 7B-911(a) (2025) states that “[u]pon placing custody with a parent

or other appropriate person, the court shall determine whether or not jurisdiction in

the juvenile proceeding should be terminated and custody of the juvenile awarded to

a parent or other appropriate person.” If the court terminates jurisdiction in the

- 11 -

juvenile proceeding and awards custody, it should file the custody order in a civil

action. Id. § 7B-911(b). When entering such an order, the trial court must specifically

make a finding that “[t]here is not a need for continued State intervention on behalf

of the juvenile through a juvenile court proceeding.” Id. § 7B-911(c)(2). Where trial

courts have failed to make this finding, this Court has remanded the case. See In re

J.B., 197 N.C. App. at 502.

Here, Finding 31 of the trial court’s review orders for Ben and Anna state

“[t]hat there is no longer a need for continued State intervention on behalf of the

Juvenile through a juvenile court proceeding.” Mother argues that this finding alone

is insufficient. To support her claim, she cites In re J.B. and In re J.D.R. in which

this Court found that the trial court failed to make the necessary finding that there

was no need for continued State intervention. In re J.B., 197 N.C. App. at 501–02; In

re J.D.R., 239 N.C. App. 63, 72–73 (2015). However, in both In re J.B. and In re

J.D.R., the trial court made no findings as to whether continued State intervention

was necessary. In re J.B., 197 N.C. App. at 502; In re J.D.R., 239 N.C. App. at 72–

73. We do not read § 7B-911(c)(2) or In re J.B. and In re J.D.R. as requiring more

than the ultimate finding that continued State intervention is not necessary.

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s order complied with § 7B-911(c)(2).

2. Chapter 50 Order

N.C.G.S. § 7B-911(c) also requires that when transferring a juvenile neglect

case to a civil proceeding and entering a custody order, the trial court shall “[m]ake

- 12 -

findings and conclusions that support the entry of a custody order in an action under

Chapter 50 of the General Statutes.” § 7B-911(c)(1). In turn, Chapter 50 requires

that custody of a child be granted to such person “as will best promote the interest

and welfare of the child.” N.C.G.S. §50-13.2(a). In determining the best interests of

the child, the court “shall consider all relevant factors including acts of domestic

violence between the parties, the safety of the child, and the safety of either party

from domestic violence by the other party.” Id. Additionally, “[a]n order for custody

must include written findings of fact that reflect the consideration of each of these

factors and that support the determination of what is in the best interest of the child.”

Id.

Overall, “[t]he judgment of the trial court should contain findings of fact which

sustain the conclusion of law that custody of the child is awarded to the person who

will best promote the interest and welfare of the child.” In re J.D.R., 239 N.C. App.

at 72 (quoting Green v. Green, 54 N.C. App. 571, 572 (1981)). “These findings may

concern physical, mental, or financial fitness or any other factors brought out by the

evidence . . . .” Id. (quoting Steele v. Steele, 36 N.C. App. 601, 604 (1978)). For

example, factors that this Court has considered relevant in custody determinations

include a parent’s history of mental illness, ability to provide suitable housing, drug

use, progress on the DSS plans, and financial resources to support the child. See id.

Here, the trial court’s grant of custody of Anna to Mr. W is supported by its

findings of fact. The trial court made written findings that at the time of the hearing,

- 13 -

Mother continued to test positive for illicit substances during drug screens, did not

have reliable transportation, had not completed her case plan, and could not provide

suitable housing. Additionally, the trial court found that Mr. W did have reliable

transportation, had made adequate progress within a reasonable time under the case

plan, and had safe and suitable housing. These findings, among several others in the

trial court’s order, demonstrate the trial court’s consideration of relevant factors and

are sufficient to support its ultimate determination that it was in Anna’s best interest

to award custody to Mr. W. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court made sufficient

findings as to custody of Anna pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-911(c)(1).

The trial court made similar findings of fact in its orders granting custody of

Ben to Mr. C. However, during the permanency planning hearing, the trial court

recognized that there had been “some domestic violence issues within the past year”

between Mother and Mr. C. The trial court’s subsequent orders did not include any

written findings about acts of domestic violence between the parties. Though the trial

court may have considered the parties’ history of domestic violence in making its

custody determination, its failure to make corresponding written findings of fact

violates N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2(a) and, by extension, N.C.G.S. § 7B-911(c). Accordingly,

we vacate the trial court’s “90 Day Review Order” and “Custody Order” for Ben and

remand the matter for additional written findings of fact in accordance with N.C.G.S.

§ 7B-911(c) and N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2.

III. Conclusion

- 14 -

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s orders granting custody

of Anna to Mr. W and terminating jurisdiction in Anna’s juvenile proceeding. We

vacate the trial court’s orders awarding custody of Ben to Mr. C and terminating

jurisdiction in Ben’s juvenile proceeding and remand for additional findings of fact in

accordance with N.C.G.S. § 7B-911(c) and N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT.

Judges ZACHARY and WOOD concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 15 -