Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

In re J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., & D.T.F.

In re J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., & D.T.F., 362 N.C. 167 (N.C. 2008)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
2008-01-25
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals dissent
  • adopting dissenting opinion of Steelman, J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In re J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., & D.T.F.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
IN RE J.Z.M.,362 N.C. 167(2008)
IN THE MATTER OF J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., AND D.T.F., MINOR CHILDREN.
No. 366A07.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed January 25, 2008.
Termination of Parental Rights — failure to conduct hearing within 90days — absence of prejudice
The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case reversing an order terminating respondent's parental rights because the termination hearing was not held within the 90-day period prescribed by N.C.G.S. §7B-1109is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that respondent failed to show that she was prejudicial by the delay where she merely asserted that she was deprived of the right to visit with the children, she made no assertion that had she been allowed visitation she would have been able to demonstrate that she had rectified her substance abuse and domestic violence issues which led to the removal of the children, and the delay gave the respondent additional time to rectify those issues but she failed to take advantage of this opportunity.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,184 N.C. App. 474,646 S.E.2d 631(2007), reversing an order signed on 18 April 2006 by Judge Louis A. Trosch, Jr. in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 2007.
Mecklenburg County Attorney's Office, by J. Edward Yeager, Jr. andTyrone C. Wade, for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department ofSocial Services.Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice, PLLC, by Sarah A. Motley, forappellant Guardian ad Litem.Charlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellee mother.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of respondent's remaining assignments of error.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.Page 168