 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re J.G.A.3/1/2005
ondent continue to be supervised, 3) that respondent should enter counseling to deal with the issue of her troubled relationships with men and the subsequent increased risk to her children, 4) and that she develop a stable home including appropriate caretakers for the children's special needs; that respondent's neglect and failure to provide for the safety of the children contributed to their injuries; that respondent's continued behavior and actions continue to exhibit a failure to provide for what is in the best interest of the children; that the length of time the children have been in the custody of Social Services, and the lack of progress of respondent in that time, indicate that reunification efforts are contrary to the children's interests.
We hold that these findings of fact are sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions that it was in the best interests of the children to cease reunification efforts and proceed with termination. This assignment of error is without merit.
In respondent's final two assignments of error she argues: 1) "The trial court committed reversible error when it ordered petitioner to proceed to termination of parental rights in bothcases," and 2) "The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to order a review hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-905 or a permanency planning hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-507." These assignments of error violate Rule 10(c)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure in that they do not specify the "legal basis upon which error is assigned." Bustle v. Rice, 116 N.C. App. 658, 659, 449 S.E.2d 10, 11 (1994); see also Kimmel v. Brett, 92 N.C. App. 331, 374 S.E.2d 435 (1988). They are therefore deemed abandoned.
AFFIRMED.
Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|