IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 212A23

Filed 23 May 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, 290 N.C. App. 61 (2023), affirming in part, vacating in part, and 

remanding an order entered 21 March 2022 by Judge S. Katherine Burnette in 

District Court, Vance County. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 February 2024.

Tiffanie C. Meyers, for petitioner-appellee Vance County Department of Social 

Services.

Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-appellant mother.

Erica M. Hicks, for petitioner-appellee Guardian ad Litem.

RIGGS, Justice.

When a child is removed from a parent’s custody due to abuse, neglect, or 

dependency, the preference is to place the child in a safe environment with relatives 

while the parent works towards reunification. N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) (2023). The 

legislature has evinced no statutory preference between different relatives, even outof-state relatives. Because the legislature has not created a statutory preference

system, when a trial court determines that an in-state relative is willing and able to 

provide proper care and supervision and the placement is in the best interest of the 

child, the court need not wait for a home study to rule out an alternative out-of-state 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-2-

relative placement. Still, when the trial court orders a home study of a relative 

placement, social services must perform a timely evaluation of the potential 

placement. Timely evaluation and attention to these matters is critical to expedite 

permanency and stability for a child and to provide the court with the thorough

information needed to evaluate whether the placement is in the best interests of the 

child.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

In February of 2019, Vance County Department of Social Services (DSS) took 

nonsecure custody of Kelly, Amy, and Matt1 because the parents had issues with 

homelessness, mental health, and domestic violence. At the time of removal, Kelly 

was 5 months old, Amy was 18 months old, and Matt was 2 years old. The children 

were temporarily placed in foster care. 

At the dispositional hearing, on 20 February 2019, the trial court placed the 

children with their paternal great aunt (Great Aunt) and ordered that the “[m]aternal 

grandmother who lives in Georgia, shall be investigated as a possible placement.” 

Shortly thereafter, the trial court adjudicated the children as neglected and 

dependent. 

Initially, in March of 2019, DSS began the process of the out-of-state home 

study on the maternal grandmother (Grandmother) pursuant to the Interstate 

Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) by requesting birth certificates and 

1 The names are stipulated pseudonyms used pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 42. 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-3-

social security cards for the children. After this initial effort, DSS took no further 

action on Grandmother’s ICPC home study until November 2021. 

Generally, when children are in DSS custody, the trial court holds permanency 

planning hearings on a regular basis to assess the status of the parents and the 

children. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1 (2023). For a host of factors, some clear to us and 

some not, that did not occur here: the court granted seven continuances before the 

first permanency planning hearing in this case. The first permanency planning 

hearing took over seven months to complete; the hearing was held over the course of 

several days between 19 August 2020 and 25 February 2021. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the trial court ordered the placement of the children to remain with Great 

Aunt and again ordered DSS to “initiate the ICPC [home study] for the juveniles’ 

[Grandmother.]” The trial court ceased reunification efforts with the parents and 

changed the primary plan for the children to guardianship. 

The trial court held a second permanency planning hearing on 7 July 2021. 

Even then, DSS still had not initiated the ICPC home study for Grandmother. DSS 

recommended establishing guardianship with Great Aunt and closing the matter.

The guardian ad litem, however, recommended that the ICPC home study for 

Grandmother be expedited. The trial court ordered that the “ICPC [home study] for 

[Grandmother] be expedited” and scheduled a subsequent hearing on 25 August 2021. 

However, the hearing on 25 August 2021 was delayed because “the results of the 

ICPC [home study had] not been received by [DSS].” 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-4-

The third permanency planning hearing began on 18 October 2021.2 On the 

first day of the hearing, DSS’s attorney told the court that the ICPC home study

request had “been sent to Georgia, but we do not have results.” The DSS social worker 

testified that first day, stating that since her initial contact with the Georgia ICPC 

office in March 2019, she did not contact them again until one week before the hearing 

when she left them a message. When the DSS social worker was cross-examined on 

the second day of the hearing, two months later, she testified that she did not actually 

send the request for the ICPC home study to Georgia until 5 November 2021. 

Grandmother testified at this hearing about her desire to provide a home for 

the children. She stated that as a retired veteran she has financial resources and 

income to provide for the children in a safe and stable home. Grandmother also 

testified that she has three minor children living with her, and one of her children

requires special accommodations at school. 

Grandmother explained she had researched therapy options for the children if 

they were to be placed in her home. She also testified that she was not contacted by 

Georgia DSS for the ICPC home study until 21 December 2021. The request from 

North Carolina contained an incorrect phone number for Grandmother, which 

delayed Georgia DSS’s ability to contact her. Grandmother testified that she was 

working with Georgia DSS to complete all aspects of the ICPC home study

expeditiously. At the close of the hearing, the court did not respond when the 

2 The hearing was held on 18 October 2021, 8 December 2021, and 9 February 2022. 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-5-

children’s mother’s attorney inquired whether the ICPC home study would “still be 

proceeding.” 

After the hearing and before the completion of the ICPC home study, the trial 

court entered an order on 21 March 2022 granting guardianship of the children to

Great Aunt. The trial court found that the children were “in need of permanency” 

and Great Aunt had “provided a safe, loving, caring and stable home” for the children 

for almost three years. As to Grandmother, the court noted that the children had 

infrequent contact with Grandmother in the three years since they had been placed 

with Great Aunt. The court noted that Grandmother already had three children in 

her home and placing the children in her care meant that there would be six children

under the age of seventeen in the home. As to Great Aunt, the court found that she 

had met the children’s education and development needs and removing them from 

her custody “would be basically removing them from the only home they have known.”

Additionally, the court found that there were family members in the local community 

willing to provide financial support for the children. The trial court did not terminate 

the parental rights of the children’s mother (Mother) and left the matter open, noting 

that “any interested party may file a motion for review.” 

Mother appealed the order arguing that the trial court erred in entering an 

order granting guardianship to Great Aunt before Georgia DSS completed the ICPC 

home study of Grandmother. The majority at the Court of Appeals “conclude[d] there 

is no obligation under the ICPC that a home study be completed to rule out an out-of-
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-6-

state relative as a placement option.” In re K.B., 290 N.C. App. 61, 65 (2023). The 

majority concluded that the trial court’s findings supported the grant of guardianship 

to Great Aunt and affirmed the order of the trial court as to the guardianship. Id. 

The Court of Appeals also vacated the order in part and remanded for reconsideration 

of Mother’s visitation. Id. at 69. Mother appealed the issue of guardianship.

II. Analysis

This case presents a narrow issue that arises when a district court is presented 

with in-state and out-of-state relative placements for children that are in the custody 

of the Department of Social Services. The question is whether the North Carolina 

statutes or the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children require the district 

court to perform a home study to rule out an out-of-state relative if the trial court 

concludes that an in-state relative is willing and able to provide proper care and 

supervision and the placement is in the best interest of the child. 

We hold that trial courts are not necessarily required to wait on completion of 

a home study to rule out the placement with an out-of-state relative if the trial court 

concludes that an in-state relative is willing and able to provide proper care and 

supervision and the placement is in the best interest of the children pursuant to 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1). But beyond the fact that the statutes do not specifically 

require the completion of a home study to rule out placement with an out-of-state 

relative, we agree with the Court of Appeals majority that “it may be an abuse of 

discretion in some cases to rule out a placement option, whether in-state or out-of-
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-7-

state, without the benefit of a home study assessment” and “it may be an abuse of 

discretion in some cases to place a child with an in-state person without a home study 

assessment of that person.” In re K.B., 290 N.C. App. at 66. Thus, the analysis of 

whether the trial court erred in placing a child with an in-state relative before the 

completion of a home study on an alternative relative is performed under an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. We further affirm that the requirements of the ICPC

apply to placements of children with out-of-state relatives including grandparents. 

A. Standard of Review 

The question of whether a trial court has followed the plain language of a 

statute is a question of statutory interpretation that is ultimately a question of law 

for the courts. Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 523 (1998). We review conclusions of 

law de novo. In re C.B.C., 373 N.C. 16, 19 (2019); Matter of E.D.H., 381 N.C. 395, 398 

(2022).

Further, the trial court’s dispositional choices are reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. In re J.M., 384 N.C. 584, 591 (2023). “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.” In re S.R., 384 N.C. 516, 520 (2023)

(cleaned up) (quoting In re C.B., 375 N.C. 556, 560 (2020)). 

B. Requirement for an ICPC Home Study under N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1)

When children must be removed from the custody of their parents, our statutes 

indicate that placement with a relative is the preferred disposition. N.C.G.S. § 7B-
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-8-

903(a1). In a scenario where the trial court is deciding between two relative 

placements, N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) does not require the court to wait on the final 

resolution of an ICPC study for an out-of-state relative. If the trial court finds that 

an in-state relative is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision, then 

the court may make findings and conclude that, in its discretion, placement with the 

in-state relative is in the best interest of the children. 

When the court exercises jurisdiction over a juvenile due to abuse, neglect, or 

dependency, N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) indicates a preference to place the child with 

relatives. The statute requires the court to consider the propriety of keeping the child 

in the child’s community but otherwise does not recognize any preference between instate and out-of-state relatives. 

In placing a juvenile in out-of-home care under this 

section, the court shall first consider whether a relative of 

the juvenile is willing and able to provide proper care and 

supervision of the juvenile in a safe home. If the court finds 

that the relative is willing and able to provide proper care 

and supervision in a safe home, then the court shall order 

placement of the juvenile with the relative unless the court 

finds that the placement is contrary to the best interests of 

the juvenile. In placing a juvenile in out-of-home care 

under this section, the court shall also consider whether it 

is in the juvenile’s best interest to remain in the juvenile’s 

community of residence. Placement of a juvenile with a 

relative outside of this State must be in accordance with the 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) (emphasis added). 

The ICPC, referenced in N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1), is a uniform law enacted by all 

fifty states that governs interstate placement of children. N.C.G.S. § 7B-3800 (2023). 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-9-

The General Assembly enacted the ICPC as N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-3800 to 3808 (2023), and 

the language of N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) makes clear that placement of children with 

relatives outside of North Carolina must comply with the requirements found in the 

ICPC. N.C.G.S. § 7B-3800. The statutory language of N.C.G.S. § 7B-3800 reveals 

that a relevant purpose of the ICPC is to ensure that the authorities “of the state from 

which the placement is made may obtain the most complete information on the basis 

of which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-3800, 

art. I(c) (emphasis added).

To that end, the ICPC provides the trial court with information to ascertain if 

the out-of-state placement is in the best interest of the child by creating a “means of 

placing children across state lines with the same safeguards and services as are 

available when they are placed within their own state.” N.C. Child Welfare Manual, 

Interstate/Intercounty Services for Children, 1 (December 2022), 

https://policies.ncdhhs.gov/document/interstate-compact-on-the-placement-ofchildren/ [hereinafter, ICPC Manual]. The receiving state performs a home study

and provides an approval or denial of the placement as soon as practical—but no later 

than 180 days after the request is made and within twenty business days for an 

expedited approval process.

3 Id. at 58, 73–74. After a placement is approved, North 

Carolina retains final authority to determine whether to exercise the approved 

3 Notably, because the children were under the age of four at the time of removal, the 

ICPC home study initially qualified for an expedited review. ICPC Manual, at 34. 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-10-

placement. Id. at 74. 

The guiding consideration in the placement process is the best interest of the 

child. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(d1); N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1). For that reason, even 

when the court is considering placement with an out-of-state relative, the trial court 

may still conclude that placement with an in-state relative is in the best interest of 

the child based on any number of factors. But in some scenarios, the best-interest 

determination may require the completion of an ICPC home study before the trial 

court can make a placement. In this case, the majority at the Court of Appeals 

concluded that the order supported the trial court’s discretionary decision to place the 

children with Great Aunt. In re K.B., 290 N.C. App. at 66. The trial court found that 

Great Aunt’s home was the only home the children have ever known, the children 

have bonded with Great Aunt, and that for all the reasons listed in the trial court’s 

order, it was in the best interest of the children to remain in the current placement. 

Id. at 65. 

Here, it is troubling that DSS seems to have unjustifiably delayed complying 

with the trial court’s order to promptly conduct the ICPC study. Id. The trial court’s 

discretion gives it the capacity and the obligation to hold parties accountable,

including requiring DSS to show cause for repeatedly ignoring a court order. See

N.C.G.S. § 7B-904(e) (2023). However, based on the facts of this case, we cannot 

conclude that the trial court’s decision to proceed without a complete ICPC home 

study was an abuse of discretion. Grandmother already had three minor children 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-11-

living in her home. Significantly, the children have not formed a bond with

Grandmother due to infrequent contact between Grandmother and the children.4 

To be sure, the trial court made findings of fact that support its award of 

guardianship to Great Aunt. The findings of fact establish that Great Aunt provided 

a safe, loving, and stable home for the children and supported the children’s 

educational and developmental needs. The trial court found that the children were 

receiving therapy to address developmental delays and making appropriate progress

to meet annual goals. Great Aunt had supported the children with the help of family 

members for almost three years. These findings of fact support the trial court’s 

conclusion awarding guardianship of the children to Great Aunt. 

It bears noting that while DSS provides trial courts with recommendations as 

to the proper placement for children, the ultimate decision as to the placement 

remains with the trial court. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1 (recognizing that the court 

determines whether to maintain the juvenile’s placement, order a different 

placement, or order any disposition authorized by statute). We have no doubt that,

in most instances, DSS performs this difficult job admirably. But DSS may not, by 

delay, put a thumb on the scale of the court’s best-interest evaluation or otherwise 

interfere with the court’s ability to obtain all information relevant to the best-interest 

analysis by delaying compliance with court orders. 

4 Nevertheless, in a different factual scenario, a court may abuse its discretion by 

making conclusions about the best interests of the children without the additional 

information provided by a home study.
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-12-

C. ICPC Applicability to Placements with Out-of-State Grandparents

The Court of Appeals’ opinion highlighted some tensions in cases from that 

court addressing the applicability of the ICPC to placement with relatives, specifically 

grandparents, located outside the state lines. A prior decision from the Court of 

Appeals held that the ICPC did not apply to out-of-state placements with 

grandparents. In re J.E., 182 N.C. App. 612 (2007). But In re J.E. relied upon nowoutdated statutory language and a narrow reading of the ICPC definition of 

placement. Id. at 614. Thus, we take this opportunity to make clear that the ICPC 

does apply to an order granting guardianship to out-of-state grandparents. 

A separate line of cases from the Court of Appeals aligns with this 

understanding of the ICPC’s applicability, holding that placement with an out-ofstate relative requires prior approval from the receiving state through the ICPC 

process. See, e.g., In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 702 (2005) (holding a child cannot be 

placed with an out-of-state relative until favorable completion of an ICPC home 

study) abrogated on other grounds by In re T.H.T., 362 N.C. 446 (2008); In re V.A., 

221 N.C. App. 637, 641 (2012) (holding the trial court could not place a child with her 

grandmother in South Carolina because South Carolina authorities did not approve 

the placement); In re J.D.M.-J., 260 N.C. App. 56, 63 (2018) (acknowledging a conflict 

in the holdings of In re J.E. and In re V.A. and relying upon the holdings of In re V.A.

and In re L.L. to conclude that placement with an out-of-state relative triggered the 

requirements of the ICPC). Our decision affirms the holding of these cases: before 
IN RE: K.B., A.M.H., M.S.H

Opinion of the Court

-13-

the trial court can place an abused, neglected, or dependent child with an out-of-state 

relative, the trial court must first receive approval from the receiving state consistent 

with the ICPC. 

III. Conclusion

In sum, our statutes express a preference to place abused, neglected, or 

dependent children with relatives who can provide proper care and supervision in a 

safe home. ICPC home studies provide trial courts with crucial information to 

determine whether out-of-state relatives can provide proper care and supervision in 

a safe home and help those courts assess with full information what is in the best 

interest of the children. Nevertheless, when a trial court considers a dispositional 

decision between relatives, that court is not required to wait on a completed ICPC 

home study to rule out an out-of-state relative when the trial court determines that 

an in-state relative can provide proper care and supervision in a safe home and the 

court is able to determine it is in the best interest of the child to be placed with that

in-state relative before completion of that home study. Lastly, we note that our 

decision does not disturb the Court of Appeals’ vacatur and remand on the issue of 

Mother’s visitation with the children.

AFFIRMED.