Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF: K.H. and P.D.D., Minor Children
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 2006-04-04
Citations: 177 N.C. App. 110
Docket Number: No. COA05-655
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF: K.H. and P.D.D., Minor Children
Judges: Judge WYNN concurs.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 177
Pages: 110–116

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF: K.H. and P.D.D., Minor Children
No. COA05-655
(Filed 4 April 2006)
1. Appeal and Error— appealability — permanency planning order
A permanency planning order that changed the permanent plan from reunification to adoption was a final order from which appeal could be taken.
2. Termination of Parental Rights— permanency planning order — appointment of guardian ad litem for parent
A permanency planning order was remanded for a hearing as to whether respondent-parent was entitled to the appointment of a guardian ad litem where the evidence raised genuine issues about the inteiplay between respondent’s mental health, the neglect of his children, and his entitlement to a guardian ad litem. N.C.G.S. § 7B-602(b)(l).
Judge Jackson dissenting.
Appeal by respondent father from orders entered 28 September 2004 by Judge Patricia Kaufmann Young in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 2006.
Sybil G. Mann and Lisa Morrison for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services.
Michael N. Tousey for Guardian ad Litem, Jan Wilkins.
Susan J. Hall for respondent-appellee mother.
Katharine Chester for respondent-appellant father.

Opinion:
HUNTER, Judge.
Respondent-father ("respondent") appeals from two permanency planning and review orders entered by the trial court relieving the Buncombe County Department of Social Services ("DSS") of further efforts to reunify respondent with his minor child, P.D.D., and his stepdaughter, K.H. Respondent contends the trial court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent him where the record contained substantial evidence of his mental illness and substance abuse. We agree that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing as to whether respondent was entitled to appointment of a guardian ad litem, and we therefore reverse the permanency planning orders of the trial court.
On 18 September 2003, DSS filed a juvenile petition in Buncombe County District Court alleging that one-month-old P.D.D. was a neglected juvenile in that he lived in an environment injurious to his welfare. The petition alleged, inter alia, that respondent regularly used crack cocaine, was verbally and physically abusive towards his wife (P.D.D.'s mother) and other members of the household, and had threatened to kill an investigative social worker. A nonsecure custody order was subsequently issued. On 17 March 2004, P.D.D. was adjudicated neglected. The central concerns with respondent's parental abilities, as found by the trial court in its order of adjudication and disposition, were (1) his substance abuse; (2) domestic violence perpetrated by respondent; and (3) issues of anger management. The trial court also found that respondent had been diagnosed "with depression, Bipolar Disorder, that he has been viewed as suicidal and homicidal, that he has been addicted to crack cocaine and started using approximately 20 to 25 years ago." Respondent had also been diagnosed with "Personality Disorder NOS" and "appears to have some borderline tendencies including 'splitting' the world into extremes."
On 20 August 2004, the trial court held a permanency planning and review hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907(a) regarding both P.D.D. and respondent's stepdaughter, K.H., who had earlier been adjudicated neglected in a separate proceeding. In its subsequent order, the trial court noted that respondent had attempted to commit suicide in June of 2004 by slitting his throat, and found that respondent's "suicidal incident in June raises ongoing concern about his mental health[.]" The trial court found respondent had not addressed the issues of domestic violence and substance abuse that led to the children's removal from the home. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court found and concluded that the best plan to achieve a safe, permanent home for P.D.D. and K.H. would be to change the plan from reunification to adoption with a concurrent plan of guardianship with a relative. The trial court therefore relieved DSS of further reunification efforts with respondent. Respondent appeals. Respondent-mother does not appeal.
Initially, it should be noted that the district court's order is a final order and, as such, is appealable. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001 (2003) (orders of disposition after an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency are appealable final orders); In re Weiler, 158 N.C. App. 473, 477, 581 S.E.2d 134, 136-37 (2003) (an order that ceases reunification and allows termination of rights is a dispositional order that is appealable). Because the permanency planning order changed the permanent plan from reunification to that of adoption, it is a final order from which appeal may be taken. See In re C.L.S., 175 N.C. App. 240, 241-42, 623 S.E.2d 61, 62-63 (2005).
Respondent argues the trial court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to section 7B-602 of the North Carolina General Statutes, which provides in pertinent part that:
(b) In addition to the right to appointed counsel . a guardian ad. litem shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 17, to represent a parent in the following cases:
(1) Where it is alleged that the juvenile is a dependent juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7B-101 in that the parent is incapable as the result of substance abuse, mental retardation, mental illness, organic brain syndrome, or any other similar cause or condition of providing for the proper care and supervision of the juvenile[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-602(b) (2003). Section 7B-602(b)(l) requires appointment of a guardian ad litem where "(1) the petition specifi cally alleges dependency; and (2) the majority of the dependency allegations tend to show that a parent or guardian is incapable as the result of some debilitating condition listed in the statute of providing for the proper care and supervision of his or her child." In re H.W., 163 N.C. App. 438, 447, 594 S.E.2d 211, 216, disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 543, 599 S.E.2d 46 (2004).
In the present case, there is no express allegation of dependency, and no allegations of incapability on the part of respondent. Nevertheless, this Court will reverse an order for appointment of guardian ad litem where the evidence tends to show "that respondent's mental health issues and the child's neglect [are] so intertwined at times as to make separation of the two virtually, if not, impossible." In re J.D., 164 N.C. App. 176, 182 605 S.E.2d 643, 646 (2004); In re C.B., 171 N.C. App. 341, 346, 614 S.E.2d 579, 581-82 (2005).
In the present case, it is unclear the extent to which respondent's mental health issues are inextricably linked to the issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and anger management that support the finding of continued neglect of K.H. and RD.D. The evidence indicating respondent suffers from depression,. Bipolar Disorder, Personality Disorder NOS, as well as his suicide attempt, raises genuine questions regarding the interplay between respondent's mental health, the neglect of his children, and his entitlement to a guardian ad litem. As such, we conclude the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing as to respondent's need for a guardian ad litem, and we reverse the orders of the trial court and remand for a hearing as to whether respondent is entitled to appointment of a guardian ad litem. See In re L.M.C., 170 N.C. App. 676, 678-79, 613 S.E.2d 256, 258 (2005) (vacating a permanency planning order for failure to appoint a guardian ad litem).
Reversed and remanded.
Judge WYNN concurs.
Judge JACKSON dissents in a separate opinion.
. We note that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-602 has since been amended to provide for appointment of a guardian ad litem for a non-minor parent upon motion "if the court determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the parent is incompetent or has diminished capacity and cannot adequately act in his or her own interest." 2005 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 398, § 2. The amendment applies to cases arising after 1 October 2005. As the juvenile petition in the present case was filed 18 September 2003, the current amendment is inapplicable.