Clarifying Findings in Juvenile Permanency Planning and Relative Placement under North Carolina Law

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in In re L.L. (No. 333PA23, filed December 13, 2024). The case arises from a tragic child‐abuse investigation in Onslow County, where four‐year‐old “Liam” (a pseudonym) suffered life-altering injuries. After the Department of Social Services obtained nonsecure custody and placed Liam with foster parents Daniel and Jessica Hall, the trial court awarded them permanent custody and ceased reunification with the mother. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, finding the trial court’s statutory findings insufficient. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court reverses, holding that the trial court’s findings satisfy the requirements of N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-906.1(e), 7B-906.2(b), 7B-906.2(d) and 7B-903(a1).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court addressed four principal statutory issues:

Whether the trial court needed written findings under N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.1(e) regarding placement with a parent within six months;
Whether the order contained adequate findings under N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-906.2(b) and (d) to justify ceasing reunification efforts;
Whether the court properly applied the relative‐placement preference in N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) when awarding custody to non-relatives;
Whether the Court of Appeals misread the statutory text by imposing findings for uncontested factors.

The Supreme Court concluded:

The plain language of § 7B-906.1(e) requires written findings only as to relevant criteria, and placement with a parent was uncontestedly impossible;
Findings regarding the mother’s failure to explain the abuse and comply with medical‐care orders satisfy §§ 7B-906.2(b) and (d);
The trial court “considered” relative placement as § 7B-903(a1) requires and reasonably found that the maternal grandfather was unable to meet Liam’s extraordinary needs;
The Court of Appeals erred by demanding written findings on every sub-factor, even where uncontested or reasonably inferable.

The decision reverses the Court of Appeals and reinstates the trial court’s permanency-planning order awarding custody to the Halls.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

In re J.M., 384 N.C. 584 (2023): clarified that written findings need not quote statutes verbatim but must show the trial court considered evidence on whether reunification would be “clearly unsuccessful” or inconsistent with the child’s welfare.
In re A.U.D., 373 N.C. 3 (2019): held that identical language in § 7B-1110(a) requires findings only for relevant criteria, validating the “relevant”‐criteria interpretation.
In re L.R.L.B., 377 N.C. 311 (2021): emphasized that appellate courts may draw reasonable inferences from prior uncontested findings when determining statutory compliance.
In re D.W.P., 373 N.C. 327 (2020): recognized that a parent’s failure to explain serious injuries supports a conclusion that further reunification is inconsistent with a child’s health or safety.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court employed these interpretive principles and standards:

Plain‐meaning rule: Where statutory text is unambiguous―for example, § 7B-906.1(e) mandates findings only for “relevant” factors―the Court enforces the text.
Surplusage canon: Omitting “that are relevant” from § 7B-906.1(e) (as the Court of Appeals did) would render key words meaningless.
Consistency of usage: Identical phrases (“make findings regarding those that are relevant”) have uniform meaning across the Juvenile Code.
Standard of review:
- Statutory interpretation: evaluated de novo;
- Disposition and findings: reviewed for abuse of discretion (manifest arbitrariness or unsupportability by reason).
Inferences from prior findings: appellate courts may draw plausible inferences from a series of uncontested permanency orders when statutory factors remain unresolved.

3.3 Impact

This ruling charts clear guidance for trial and appellate courts in juvenile-care proceedings:

Limits written‐findings obligations to relevant criteria under § 7B-906.1(e), preventing mechanical recitations when factors are uncontested.
Confirms that findings on a parent’s refusal to explain severe injuries and non‐compliance with medical-care orders suffice to cease reunification under §§ 7B-906.2(b) & (d).
Clarifies that § 7B-903(a1)’s relative‐placement preference requires the court to consider a willing relative but does not demand written findings or direct comparison with non-relatives.
Reaffirms deference to trial courts on dispositional choices, so long as statutory concerns are addressed by reasoned findings.

Practitioners and courts should streamline permanency orders, focusing written findings on contested concerns and ensure that all statutory factors designated for findings are either addressed or plainly irrelevant.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Permanency-planning hearing: a dispositional stage where the court adopts a long-term plan for a child—reunification, transfer to a relative, guardianship, or adoption.
Nonsecure custody: temporary care by DSS without formal confinement, enabling immediate protection.
Guardian ad litem (GAL): a trained volunteer representing the child’s best interests, filing independent reports and recommendations.
Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding: standard adult custody rules applied when juvenile jurisdiction ends.
Abuse of discretion vs. de novo review: statutory questions are read anew by the appellate court, whereas factual and discretionary decisions are upheld unless arbitrary.

5. Conclusion

In re L.L. establishes that trial courts need not overload their orders with every statutory factor if a criterion is uncontested or irrelevant—yet they must still address and make findings on contested issues that bear on a child’s welfare. Findings that a parent cannot explain life-threatening injuries and refuses to comply with court-ordered medical care are sufficient to eliminate reunification under §§ 7B-906.2. Likewise, § 7B-903(a1) requires “consideration” of relative placement but does not elevate non-relatives by written comparison. By reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court restores deference to the trial court’s fact-finding and clarifies flexible, targeted requirements for written findings in juvenile permanency cases.