Court Opinion

ID: 7395678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 01:14:49.923745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:16.017358
License: Public Domain

This case arises from a custody dispute between A.P.'s mother (respondent), the Forsyth County Department of Social Services (DSS), and A.P.'s biological father, William. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss respondent's appeal.
On 7 November 2003 DSS filed a petition alleging: 1) that A.P. was a neglected and dependent juvenile, and 2) that immediate nonsecure custody by DSS was needed to protect A.P. DSS filed the petition after their initial intervention into A.P.'s life failed to rectify the circumstances needing attention. DSS had received numerous reports that A.P. was living in an environment injurious to her welfare because her mother and legal father, respondent and Roy, were using drugs, fighting at home, stealing from local merchants, and were not properly caring for A.P. Respondent consented to the placement of A.P. with DSS and at the 9 January 2004 hearing on neglect and dependency did not oppose the allegations in the petition.
As such, the district court granted custody of A.P. to DSS with placement to be "at the discretion of that Agency." A reunification plan was set, and supervised visitation was ordered for all parties. Further, the district court ordered that:
 6. William [D.H.] shall comply with the homestudy in Surry County as scheduled by the Department of Social Services for possible placement of [A.P.]
 7. The Forsyth County Department of Social Services shall make all necessary investigations as to William [H.'s] suitability to parent [A.P.]
 . . .
 9. This matter shall be reviewed on February 18, 2004 at 11:45 a.m., or on prior motion of any of the parties.
Prior to this time, respondent informed DSS that William [D.H.] (William) was likely A.P.'s biological father, not Roy as she had indicated to everyone at A.P.'s birth. DSS located William in Surry County, and he had previously been ordered to submit to a paternity test along *Page 422 
with Roy. William was proven to be A.P.'s biological father and, as such, began legitimization proceedings. Once he determined that A.P. was his, he expressed strong interest in raising A.P. and being a part of her life.
At the 18 February 2004 review hearing the district court ordered custody to remain with DSS and sanctioned A.P.'s placement with her biological father William.
 1. Legal custody of [A.P.] shall remain with Forsyth County Department of Social Services and her placement shall be at the discretion of that Agency.
 2. The Court sanctions the placement of [A.P.] in the home of her biological father, William [D.H.] in Surry County. Forsyth County DSS is to monitor the placement and provide a written report to all counsel prior to the next hearing in compliance with the local rules.
Respondent filed notice of appeal from that order.
Respondent's order, however, is not a dispositional order from which appeal can be taken. See In re C.L.S.,175 N.C. App. 240, 623 S.E.2d 61 (2005); In re B.N.H.,170 N.C. App. 157, 611 S.E.2d 888, disc. review denied,359 N.C. 632, 615 S.E.2d 865 (2005). The order arising from the 9 January 2004 hearing gave custody of A.P. to DSS and gave DSS the discretion to place A.P. where it saw fit. Presumptively, according to the district court's order, this included placing A.P. with William pending an appropriate conclusion from his home study. The 17 March 2004 order arising from the 18 February 2004 hearing does not change that.
 Unlike the order in In re Weiler, [158 N.C. App. 473, 581 S.E.2d 134 (2003),] where the actual order appealed from changed the status quo of the relationship between the parents and the minor, here there is no change in the status quo. Custody of the minor was given to DSS by a previous order, thus the order appealed from did not alter the disposition of the child.
In re C.L.S., 175 N.C. App. at 242, 623 S.E.2d at 63. As such, it is not an appealable order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001 (2003). See In re B.N.H.,170 N.C. App. at 161-62, 611 S.E.2d at 891 (holding that orders where the court merely continues directive changes issued in previous orders are not immediately appealable). Because the 17 March 2004 order of the district court continuing custody with DSS is *Page 423 
not an appealable final order as contemplated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001, we dismiss respondent's appeal.
Dismissed.
Judge WYNN concurs.
Judge LEVINSON concurs by separate opinion.