In re A.S.Y., __N.C.App.__,__S.E.2d__ (December 21, 2010)
The N.C. Court of appeals has issued an opinion in the above-listed case which reverses the trial court's decision to revieve a court appointed GAL of further responsibility in a TPR action filed by a motion in the cause. The Respondent Mother failed to appear at the hearing, her GAL presented the mother's position that the Court had no jurisdiction over her and then successfully moved to be withdrawn, with no objection from any party. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding as follows:
"When a GAL is appointed in accordance with Rule 17 for a parent in an abuse, neglect, or dependency proceeding, or a termination of parental rights proceeding, it is the duty of the GAL to act “as a guardian of procedural due process for that parent, to assist in explaining and executing her rights.”. . .
GAL appointed pursuant to Rule 17 “has a duty to represent the party he is appointed to represent to the fullest extent feasible and to do all things necessary to secure a judgment favorable to such party.”. . .
party so represented. . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 17(e). Since the trial court determined that respondent-mother could not adequately represent her own interests and appointed a GAL to
represent respondent-mother pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-602(c), the requirements of Rule 17 applied to the termination proceedings. Thus, the trial court erred by conducting the termination hearing without the presence and participation of a GAL for respondent-mother, and the trial court’s order terminating
respondent-mother’s parental rights to Amanda was invalid. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for a new termination hearing that complies with the requirements
of Rule 17.
No comments:
Post a Comment