IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA23-744

Filed 7 May 2024

Graham County, No. 21 JA 02

IN THE MATTER OF: J.O.

Appeal by respondent from order entered 28 April 2023 by Judge Tessa Shelton 

Sellers in District Court, Graham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 April 

2024.

Leo Phillips for petitioner-appellee Graham County Department of Social 

Services.

Richard Croutharmel for respondent-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

Respondent appeals from a permanency planning order ceasing reunification 

efforts with her minor child and placing the minor child in guardianship with his 

foster parents. Because the trial court’s order waived future review hearings and 

granted guardianship of the child without making findings by clear, cogent, and 

convincing evidence as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 7B906.1(n) and left Mother’s visitation entirely in the Guardians’ discretion, we vacate 

the order and remand for further proceedings and entry of a new order consistent 

with this opinion.

I. Background
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Josh1 was born in Graham County, North Carolina in March of 2021. On or 

about 3 March 2021, the Graham County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) filed 

a juvenile petition alleging Josh as neglected and dependent. DSS alleged Josh did

not “receive proper care, supervision, or discipline” from Mother and “lives in an 

environment injurious to” his welfare. While no drug screen was conducted on 

Mother or Josh at birth, Josh showed signs of drug withdrawal, such as fever and he 

was “very jittery.” DSS identified Mother’s felony charge of assault by strangulation 

and misdemeanor charge of child abuse as to one of her other children in the petition

in support of its argument for obtaining custody of Josh. On or about 3 March 2021, 

the trial court entered an Order for Nonsecure Custody (capitalization altered), 

finding Josh “is an Indian Child and a member of or eligible for membership in the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee tribe” and placed Josh with DSS.

After an 18 August 2021 hearing, the trial court entered an adjudication order 

on 16 November 2021 adjudicating Josh as dependent, keeping Josh in the custody of 

DSS, and allowing Mother “up to 8 hours of unsupervised visitation with [Josh] on 

Tuesdays of each week.” The trial court concluded that “the Indian Child Welfare Act 

[(“ICWA”)] applies in this matter.” The disposition hearing was continued to and 

heard on 7 December 2021, and on 31 January 2022 Josh was ordered to remain in 

the custody of DSS, with Mother’s unsupervised visitation to continue.

1 A pseudonym is used for the minor child.
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

On 2 August 2022, the trial court held a review hearing and entered an order 

allowing Mother to continue exercising visitation with Josh and requiring Mother to 

allow DSS and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (“EBCI”) to observe her home 

to determine its “fitness for visitation.” The order required Mother to “allow [DSS]

and EBCI into the home every week thereafter until September 6, 2022 to continue 

to assess the home’s fitness[.]” Visitation would continue at DSS until Mother 

provided her new address to DSS. Further, the visitations between Josh and Mother 

were to “take place between . . . [M]other and [Josh] only. The maternal great 

grandfather . . . may be present when visits are occurring in Graham County.” The 

trial court also required Mother to enroll in the “parents as teachers program” and

not to “transport [Josh], unless she is in a safe vehicle, with appropriate child safety 

seats, and the vehicle has passed a safety inspection[.]”

On 5 October 2022, the trial court entered a “Visitation Hearing Order” 

(capitalization altered), to determine “whether . . . [M]other’s visitation should be 

expanded[,]” but ordered visitation remain the same. Throughout the case, the 

cleanliness and safety of Mother’s home were central issues, as indicated by the 

exhibits and Mother’s own testimony. The trial court found that “Melody Turner, a 

tendered expert in Indian Culture and Child Rearing” “attempted to inspect 

[Mother’s] trailer a number of times” and during a 25 January 2022 home inspection, 

found Mother’s home “stacked up with boxes and trash filling the living room, 

kitchen, and the bedroom.” Additionally, “[t]he floors were dirty and covered with 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

trash and bags of stuff from stores where trash was spilling out of the trash cans.” 

Mother was then “provided with a list of things that needed to be cleaned up and 

addressed” and Mother “failed to comply with the list[.]” DSS and EBCI then 

attempted to conduct an inspection on 11 May 2022, but Mother cancelled the 

appointment; on 20 May 2022 an inspection occurred, but Mother “had made little 

progress on correcting the safety concerns provided to . . . Mother in February.” 

Mother eventually moved to a new apartment after she was evicted from her trailer 

for reasons which included the major damage she had caused to the trailer. Mother 

“took a long time to set the apartment up with furniture” and “over time [the 

apartment] continued to deteriorate” with “clutter and trash . . . continu[ing] to pile 

up and fill the apartment” and “[t]he kitchen . . . full of things that a busy toddler 

could find and place that toddler in danger” and “mountains of laundry and trash 

from food items.”

In addition to the housing issues, Mother was ordered “[t]hat visitation shall 

take place between . . . [M]other and [Josh] only. The maternal great grandfather . . 

. may be present when visits are occurring in Graham County.” Also, the trial court 

had ordered that Mother’s older son, age 18, not to be in contact with Josh, due to the 

trial court’s concern that the other child “has a violent past with a number of concerns 

by [DSS] for inappropriate behavior including to sexual proclivities toward animals 

and violent assaults.” One of Josh’s custodians testified that on at least one occasion 

she saw Mother, Josh, and Mother’s older son together despite the court order 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

prohibiting the older son’s presence.

Finally, the condition of Mother’s car was another factor the trial court 

considered in determining guardianship. Specifically, Mother had “an expired tag 

and malfunctioning brake lights” and, more relevant to this case, had “massive 

amounts of trash and food in the car almost covering the child’s safety seat in both 

the front and back portions of the car.” While there were other parts of Mother’s case 

plan discussed in the trial court’s order, the condition of Mother’s housing, concerns 

involving her older child, and safety and health concerns of her car were the main 

issues. 

On 21 February 2023, the court ordered a continuance for the next permanency 

planning hearing, which set the new hearing for 8 March 2023. DSS submitted a 

Court Report prior to the 8 March 2023 hearing which recommended the primary 

plan be changed to guardianship, and EBCI submitted a report on 2 March 2023 

agreeing with the guardianship recommendation.

The matter came for hearing on 8 March 2023, and the trial court entered an 

order on 28 April 2023 which decreed:

[T]hat the primary permanent plan be changed to 

guardianship.

That a guardianship be granted to [Guardians].

That [Guardians] shall be granted the authority to 

authorize medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological and 

educational services for [Josh].
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

That . . . Mother shall have visitation with [Josh] at the 

discretion of the Guardians. 

No further review shall be scheduled at this time.

Mother appeals. 

II. Indian Child Welfare Act 

Mother first argues “[t]he trial court reversibly erred by failing to comply with 

the procedural requirement of the [ICWA] to make findings of fact by the clear and 

convincing evidentiary standard.” As Mother contends the trial court failed to make 

findings by clear and convincing evidence, as required by ICWA, she is arguing the 

trial court failed to follow a statutory mandate. Thus, “the error is preserved and is 

a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re E.M., 263 N.C. App. 476, 479, 823 S.E.2d 

674, 676 (2019). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and 

freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.” Id.

ICWA is a federal law which establishes “minimum Federal standards for the 

removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in 

foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.” In 

re E.G.M., 230 N.C. App. 196, 199, 750 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2013) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1902 

(2012) (quotation marks and brackets omitted)). North Carolina statutes and caselaw 

set specific standards for permanency planning orders. See In re A.P.W., 378 N.C. 

405, 410, 861 S.E.2d 819, 825 (2021) (“This Court’s review of a permanency planning 

review order is limited to whether there is competent evidence in the record to 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

support the findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.” 

(citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). But if ICWA also applies to the 

case, and ICWA sets a higher standard than the North Carolina statutes, the higher 

standard prevails: 

where the [ICWA] provides a higher standard of protection 

to the Indian family than is otherwise provided by state 

law, the ICWA standard prevails. Where applicable state 

law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights 

of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child than 

the rights provided under the ICWA, the state law prevails. 

In re E.G.M., 230 N.C. App. at 199, 750 S.E.2d at 860 (citations, quotation marks, 

and brackets omitted). Mother argues that ICWA sets a higher standard for this case, 

based upon its requirement for a specific finding supported by “clear and convincing” 

evidence:

No foster care placement may be ordered in such 

proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of 

qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of 

the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to 

result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. 

25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) (2023) (emphasis added). 

The trial court did not state, either in open court or in the written order, 

whether its findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The only 

finding addressing the standard was “[t]he court makes these findings in the best 

interest of the juvenile.”

DSS argues the trial court must state that it has applied the standard of clear 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

and convincing evidence in an adjudication hearing but need not apply the same 

standard to a permanency planning hearing, and the trial court had previously

entered an adjudication order based upon clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. 

DSS is correct that an adjudication order must be based upon clear and convincing 

evidence, and the order must so state. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805 (2023) (“The 

allegations in a petition alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent 

shall be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”). “Pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 

7B-807 (2007), the court is required to recite the standard of proof the court relied on 

in its determination of neglect.” In re A.S., 190 N.C. App. 679, 688, 661 S.E.2d 313, 

319 (2008), aff'd per curiam, 363 N.C. 254, 675 S.E.2d 361 (2009). In contrast, the 

findings in a disposition order or permanency planning order may be based upon a 

preponderance of the evidence, unless the order waives additional hearings required 

by North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n) and if so, the trial court must 

then make certain findings by “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.” See N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-906.1(n) (2023).

But we need not address whether ICWA requires the trial court to state in the 

order that it made the finding as required by 25 United States Code Section 1912(e) 

by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, as North Carolina General Statute Section 

7B-906.1(n) requires the findings in the order on appeal to be made by clear, cogent, 

and convincing evidence as well. See id. The trial court’s order waived future 

hearings under North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n) and ordered 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

“guardianship be granted to [Guardians]” and “[n]o further review shall be scheduled 

at this time.” Because the trial court’s order waived future hearings, the trial court 

was required to make specific findings by “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence 

under North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n):

(n) Notwithstanding other provisions of this Article, the 

court may waive the holding of hearings required by this 

section, may require written reports to the court by the 

agency or person holding custody in lieu of permanency 

planning hearings, or order that permanency planning 

hearings be held less often than every six months if the court 

finds by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence each of the 

following:

(1) The juvenile has resided in the placement for a 

period of at least one year or the juvenile has resided in 

the placement for at least six consecutive months and 

the court enters a consent order pursuant to G.S. 7B801(b1).

(2) The placement is stable and continuation of the 

placement is in the juvenile’s best interests.

(3) Neither the juvenile’s best interests nor the rights of 

any party require that permanency planning hearings 

be held every six months.

(4) All parties are aware that the matter may be 

brought before the court for review at any time by the 

filing of a motion for review or on the court’s own 

motion.

(5) The court order has designated the relative or other 

suitable person as the juvenile’s permanent custodian 

or guardian of the person.

The court may not waive or refuse to conduct a hearing if 

a party files a motion seeking the hearing. However, if a 

guardian of the person has been appointed for the juvenile 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

and the court has also made findings in accordance with 

subsection (n) of this section that guardianship is the 

permanent plan for the juvenile, the court shall proceed in 

accordance with G.S. 7B-600(b).

Id. (emphasis added).

Although the trial court’s order did not make the findings required by North 

Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n), the trial court ordered that “no further 

review shall be scheduled at this time,” effectively waiving permanency planning 

review hearings every six months as required by North Carolina General Statute 

Section 7B-906.1(a). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 906.1(a) (2023) (“Review or permanency 

planning hearings shall be held at least every six months thereafter [the initial 

permanency planning hearing].”). In addition, the trial court granted guardianship 

to Guardians and left visitation with Mother entirely to their discretion. Based upon 

the evidence and record before the trial court, the trial court could have made findings 

as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n), but we cannot 

determine from the order exactly what the trial court intended to do. 

Therefore, as the trial court was required to use the clear and convincing 

standard under North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n), and the trial 

court did not recite the standard in open court or in its written order, we must vacate 

and remand for the trial court to make appropriate findings under the clear and 

convincing evidence standard.

III. Constitutionally Protected Status as a Parent
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

Mother next argues that “[t]he trial court reversibly erred by placing Josh in 

the guardianship of the foster parents without making a finding that . . . Mother was 

unfit or that her conduct had been inconsistent with her constitutionally protected 

status as a parent.”

“Parents have a constitutionally protected right to the custody, care and 

control of their child, absent a showing of unfitness to care for the child.” In re R.P., 

252 N.C. App. 301, 304, 798 S.E.2d 428, 430 (2017) (citation, quotation marks, and 

brackets omitted). Further, “[p]rior to granting guardianship of a child to a 

nonparent, a district court must clearly address whether the respondent is unfit as a 

parent or if his conduct has been inconsistent with his constitutionally protected 

status as a parent.” Id. (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Finally, 

“a parent’s right to findings regarding her constitutionally protected status is waived 

if the parent does not raise the issue before the trial court.” Id. at 304, 798 S.E.2d at 

430-31 (citation omitted). “We review a conclusion that the natural parent’s conduct 

was inconsistent with her constitutionally protected right de novo, and determine 

whether it is supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re B.R.W., 278 N.C. 

App. 382, 392, 863 S.E.2d 202, 211, aff’d, 381 N.C. 61, 871 S.E.2d 764 (2022) (citation, 

quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

While Mother did not explicitly raise a constitutional objection at the 

permanency planning hearing, she argues (1) she was not afforded an opportunity to 

raise an objection at the hearing, citing In re R.P., 252 N.C. App. 301, 798 S.E.2d 428
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

(2017), or (2) “Mother did object with her testimony and arguments requesting the 

trial court return custody of Josh to her.” In R.P., this Court held the father’s failure 

to object did not waive his right to challenge the constitutional finding since “the trial 

court determined at the 9 February 2016 permanency planning review hearing that 

it would ‘proceed with guardianship at the next date.’” Id. at 305, 798 S.E.2d at 431 

(emphasis in original). Despite this determination, “[a]t the next hearing, on 17 

March 2016, the trial court would not allow any evidence to be presented concerning 

guardianship, stating that guardianship had been determined at the prior hearing” 

and the 17 March hearing was “strictly limited to the issue of visitation.” Id. But 

here, Mother was not prevented from presenting evidence concerning guardianship 

and she had notice of the recommendations from DSS and EBCI to grant 

guardianship to Guardians prior to the hearing.

Our Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of preservation of a 

constitutional argument as to the parent’s right to custody of a child. See In re J.N., 

381 N.C. 131, 133-34, 871 S.E.2d 495, 497-98 (2022); see also In re J.M., 384 N.C. 584, 

603-04, 887 S.E.2d 823, 835-36 (2023). In In re J.N., the respondent argued his 

constitutional argument was automatically preserved. See In re J.N., 381 N.C. at 

133, 871 S.E.2d at 497. The Court held the issue was not automatically preserved for 

appellate review and the respondent had notice the hearing was for the purpose of 

changing the primary plan from reunification to guardianship since “DSS filed a court 

report in which it stated that reunification was not possible” and recommended 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

guardianship; DSS also specifically argued at the hearing guardianship was proper. 

Id. at 133, 871 S.E.2d at 498. Finally, the Court held 

[i]n turn, respondent’s argument focused on the reasons 

reunification would be a more appropriate plan. Despite 

having the opportunity to argue or otherwise assert that 

awarding guardianship to the maternal grandparents 

would be inappropriate on constitutional grounds, 

respondent failed to do so. Therefore, respondent waived 

the argument for appellate review.

Id. 

In In re J.M., our Supreme Court similarly held 

the guardian ad litem filed a report prior to the 

permanency planning hearing recommending that 

reunification be removed as the primary plan inasmuch as 

the cause of Nellie’s injuries remained unexplained. When 

the trial court announced at the hearing that it was 

contemplating eliminating reunification from the 

permanent plan, it gave the parties a thirty-minute recess 

to consider their responses. Notwithstanding the prehearing notice that reunification would be on the table and 

the 30-minute recess, respondents at no point during the 

permanency planning hearing argued that the proposed 

changes to the permanent plan would be improper on 

constitutional grounds. Consequently, they did not 

preserve the issue for appellate review.

In re J.M., 384 N.C. at 604, 887 S.E.2d at 836 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets 

omitted).

Here, DSS filed a Court Summary for the scheduled 21 February 2023 court 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

date with the following “Summary and Recommendations:2”

1. That the Permanent Plan be changed to Guardianship 

with a Concurrent Plan of Custody at this time;

2. That Guardianship be granted to the current placement 

providers . . . at this time;

3. That [Guardians] shall be responsible for the placement 

and care of the juvenile and shall provide or arrange for the 

physical placement of the juvenile in their discretion;

4. That [Guardians] be granted the authority to authorize 

necessary medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, and 

educational or assessment services for the juvenile;

5. That . . . [DSS] has made reasonable and active efforts to 

return the juvenile to the home;

6. That the return of the juvenile to the home at this time 

would be contrary to his best interest;

7. That if Guardianship is granted at this time, that 

visitation with . . . Mother occur at the discretion of 

Guardians and that . . . Mother comply with orders of the 

court.

In addition, EBCI presented a report dated 2 March 2023 for the hearing and stated 

in its “Summary and Recommendations” (capitalization altered) that “[t]he Tribe 

agrees with [DSS] recommendations to change the permanency plan to Guardianship 

with [Guardians].”

Mother had an opportunity to raise her constitutional argument for the same 

reasons as the respondents in In re J.N. and In re J.M. since DSS and EBCI both filed 

2 The hearing date was continued by order of the trial court and the hearing was ultimately held on 8 

March 2023.
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

court reports recommending Josh be placed in guardianship with the foster parents

and specifically argued in support of this recommendation at the hearing. See In re 

J.N., 381 N.C. at 133-34, 871 S.E.2d at 497-98; see also In re J.M., 384 N.C. at 603-

04, 887 S.E.2d at 835-36. Further, while Mother testified extensively, presented her 

own witnesses, and her counsel argued during closing arguments “I believe that 

changing the plan [from reunification to guardianship] at this point in time based on 

all of her progress would, would be a miscarriage of justice for her when she has 

worked so hard to . . . get this child back in her life[,]” she did not contend

guardianship would be improper on constitutional grounds or that Mother was a fit 

and proper parent. While this Court has previously considered these actions by 

Mother as sufficient to preserve her constitutional argument, see In re B.R.W., 278 

N.C. App. 382, 397, 863 S.E.2d 202, 214, aff'd, 381 N.C. 61, 871 S.E.2d 764, our

Supreme Court’s most recent cases hold that where the respondent-parent has notice 

prior to the hearing that the trial court will be considering a recommendation to grant 

guardianship of the child, the respondent-parent must make a specific constitutional 

argument regarding her parental rights before the trial court to preserve a 

constitutional argument on appeal. See In re J.N., 381 N.C. at 133-34, 871 S.E.2d at 

497-98; see also In re J.M., 384 N.C. at 603-04, 887 S.E.2d at 835-36. Thus, we hold 

Mother failed to preserve her argument as to her constitutionally protected status as 

a parent and decline to address this issue.

IV. Visitation
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

Finally, Mother argues “[t]he trial court abused its discretion by ordering . . . 

Mother’s visits with Josh be in the discretion of the guardians.” DSS concedes Mother 

is correct, and we agree.

A dispositional order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See In re S.G., 268 

N.C. App. 360, 374, 835 S.E.2d 479, 489 (2019). Under North Carolina General 

Statute Section 7B-905.1, 

(a) An order that removes custody of a juvenile from 

a parent, guardian, or custodian or that continues the 

juvenile’s placement outside the home shall provide for 

visitation that is in the best interests of the juvenile 

consistent with the juvenile’s health and safety, including 

no visitation. The court may specify in the order conditions 

under which visitation may be suspended. 

. . . .

(c) If the juvenile is placed or continued in the 

custody or guardianship of a relative or other suitable 

person, any order providing for visitation shall specify the 

minimum frequency and length of the visits and whether 

the visits shall be supervised. The court may authorize 

additional visitation as agreed upon by the respondent and 

custodian or guardian. 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905.1 (2023).

Here, the trial court ordered Mother to have “visitation with the juvenile at the 

discretion of the Guardians.” As the trial court provided no conditions as to visitation, 

including the frequency and length of visitations, and whether they will be supervised 

or unsupervised, we remand this issue to the trial court. See id.; see also In re J.D.R., 

239 N.C. App. 63, 76, 768 S.E.2d 172, 180 (2015) (“In the present case, we find that 
IN RE: J.O.

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

the trial court impermissibly delegated its judicial function to [the f]ather. . . . 

Therefore, we remand in order that the trial court can make findings and conclusions 

relating to visitation rights that comport with this opinion.”).

V. Conclusion

Mother also raised other arguments on appeal, including that the trial court 

failed to make the statutorily required findings to place Josh in guardianship and to 

cease reunification efforts. Since we have already determined we must vacate the 

trial court’s order and remand for entry of a new order as discussed above, we need 

not address Mother’s arguments regarding cessation of reunification efforts. On 

remand, the trial court shall enter a new order stating the standard of clear and 

convincing evidence for any findings as required by ICWA under 25 United States 

Code 1912(e), and North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-906.1(n). In addition, 

the trial court shall set out the specific frequency and duration of any visitation and 

whether visitation will be supervised or unsupervised. On remand, the trial court 

shall hold a hearing prior to entry of the new order to receive evidence as to the 

current circumstances as relevant to the new order. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Judges TYSON and GORE concur.