In The Matter Of: C.A
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. NO. COA12-123 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 August 2012 IN THE MATTER OF: C.A. Wake County No. 09 JT 857 Appeal by Respondent-Father from orders entered 24 November 2010 and 7 October 2011 by Judge Monica M. Bousman in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 July 2012. Office of the Wake County Attorney, by Kenneth R. Murphy, III and Julia B. Southwick, for Petitioner-Appellee Wake County Human Services. Windy H. Rose for Respondent-Appellant Father. Pamela Newell for Guardian ad Litem. McGEE, Judge. Respondent-Father planning order (the purports to appeal planning order) from ceasing efforts with his minor child, C.I.A. (the a permanency reunification Juvenile), and an -2order terminating his parental rights as to the Juvenile1 (the termination order). We dismiss Respondent-Father's appeal because he presents no arguments regarding the termination order and his appeal from the planning order is therefore moot. Wake involved County with Human Services Respondent-Father (Petitioner) and the first Juvenile in became October 2009, when the Juvenile was admitted to the Wake Medical Center emergency room, suffering from fractures to his right leg and arm. Petitioner took non-secure custody of the Juvenile, and filed a petition neglected. alleging that the Juvenile was abused and The Juvenile was adjudicated to be an abused and neglected Juvenile by a consent order entered 2 December 2009. As a result of the Juvenile's injuries, Respondent-Father was arrested and charged with felony child abuse. Respondent- Father subsequently pled guilty to misdemeanor child abuse and was released into the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Respondent-Father was deported to Mexico in March 2010. The trial court initially ordered Respondent-Father to meet several Juvenile. 1 conditions if he desired reunification with the However, on 24 November 2010, the trial court entered The Juvenile's mother relinquished her parental rights on 26 April 2011 and is not a party to this appeal. -3a planning order ceasing reunification efforts and setting the permanent plan for the Juvenile as adoption. Petitioner filed a motion to terminate Respondent-Father's parental rights on 24 February 2011. After a hearing on 25 August 2011, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondent-Father's parental rights on neglected foster the the care following Juvenile; for grounds: that Respondent-Father willfully left than more (2) twelve months the Juvenile without (1) in making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the Juvenile from Respondent-Father's home; and (3) failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the Juvenile. Respondent-Father appeals. While Respondent-Father does argue that the trial court erred in entering the planning order, he makes no argument in either his petition for writ of certiorari, or in his brief, that the trial court erred in entering its order terminating his parental rights. This Court has held that a subsequent termination of parental rights renders moot a parent's appeal from a permanency planning order ceasing reunification efforts where the termination order. findings order of are fact and independent conclusions of the of law permanency in the planning In re V.L.B., 164 N.C. App. 743, 596 S.E.2d 896 (2004). -4"'A case is "moot" when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy.'" In re Stratton, 159 N.C. App. 461, 463, 583 S.E.2d 323, 324 (quoting Roberts v. Madison County Realtors Assn., 344 N.C. 394, 398-99, 474 S.E.2d 783, 787 (1996)), appeal dismissed, 357 N.C. 506, 588 S.E.2d 472 (2003). In the case before us, one of the three grounds found by the trial court to terminate Respondent-Father's parental rights is that the Juvenile was placed in Petitioner's custody and Respondent-Father willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the Juvenile although he was physically and financially able to do so. The trial court's findings of fact regarding this ground do not rely on the planning order, which Respondent-Father seeks to appeal, and Respondent-Father's failure to pay a portion of the attributed to the planning order. App. 332, 339, 274 S.E.2d 236, cost of care cannot be See In re Biggers, 50 N.C. 241 (1981) (holding "[a]ll parents have the duty to support their children within their means"). Further, Respondent-Father does not argue that the trial court's findings regarding this ground for termination are unsupported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; that the trial court's conclusion of law is unsupported by its findings -5of fact; or that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding it was in the Juvenile's best interest to terminate Respondent-Father's parental rights. Accordingly, we hold Respondent-Father's attempted appeal from the planning order is moot, and we decline to grant certiorari in this case. Dismissed. Judges GEER and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
