A comprehensive and easily accessible directory of Employee Leasing Services nationwide
help small business Attract and Retain quality employees by offering quality benefits through Employee Leasing Services
Foster an environment of fellowship and free exchange of ideas among member Employee Leasing Companies

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

In re M.S.

11/1/2005

e disagree.


Much of the evidence presented at the termination hearing concerned respondent's failure to demonstrate love, affection and concern for the child. Deborah Koen, a Wilkes County DSS social worker assigned to the case since February 2003, testified that respondent had no contact or visits with M.S. since the entry of the 2001 court order ceasing reunification efforts. Respondent had not requested any visits with M.S., and had not sent any cards orgifts during the three year period preceding the termination hearing. Nor had she filed a motion to reinstate visitation with M.S. since she filed such a motion in June 2002. Respondent had not called her to inquire about M.S., and had not taken any actions "to show some interest in [M.S.] or her well-being." Since her involvement in the case began, Koen met with respondent only once during an agency review in October 2003. Ann Serafin, M.S.'s foster parent since 11 December 2000, testified that she had not received a call or anything in writing from respondent inquiring about M.S. _ and no cards or gifts of any sort from her except a teddy bear in December 2001 and, later, an afghan. These gifts were provided by respondent before the court ceased reunification efforts in July 2001. According to Serafin, S.N.S. sent a Christmas card to M.S. one year, and provided a gift in-person to her when she took M.S. to see S.N.S. at a mall.


Other evidence presented during the termination hearing concerned respondent's inability or unwillingness to discipline and/or properly parent M.S. during the time she was in her care. According to Serafin, M.S. had drastically improved since first coming into her care. She provided numerous examples:


When M.S. first came into my care, there were many things that I had to teach her. She didn't know anything about any holidays. She never knew what a birthday celebration or Christmas or Easter or Valentine's day . She really, truly didn't know what the word Mother meant. I mean, basic things like that. She thought sisters took care of you. She didn't think mothers took care of you.


Serafin testified further that, while M.S. knew that "she had a person in her life named ", referring to respondent, she "does not remember too much about her now." And, Serafin explained, M.S. had nightmares about her brother and mother when she first began living with her. Respondent became "easily frustrated" during her early visits with M.S. that occurred before the trial court changed the plan to reunification. These visits were ceased consistent with "information from the therapist," and because M.S. was "no longer having the nightmares and the anxiety problems she had been reported having for the visits."


Some of the evidence reflected on the current circumstances in respondent's home, particularly those concerning the nature and quality of her supervision of her daughter, S.N.S. At the time of the hearing, S.N.S. was living with respondent after having been released from out-of-home placements under the direction of the juvenile court. S.N.S. was presently enrolled in the high school diploma program at Wilkes Community College after having decided not to attend public high school. Respondent was "not sure" how often S.N.S. attended classes. She attended " ome, not a whole lot" because S.N.S. had headaches which have "been about every day for a long time." Moreover, respondent was uncertain about whether, or how frequently, S.N.S.'s boyfriend spent early morning hours in the home. Outside of sporadic attendance at GED classes and a weekly obligation to help clean her boyfriend's residence, respondent acknowledged that S.N.S. "doesn't do much with her time." In sum, the testimony could support

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

North Carolina Employee Leasing Services    Employee Leasing Services


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.

Employee Leasing Who Is the Employer? Hiring/Firing Issues
Employee Leasing Advantage Employee Leasing Models Human Resources Management
Employee Handbooks American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Employers Practice Liability Insurance (EPL)
Employment Forms, Postings Sexual Harassment at workplace Employee Leasing vs. Temp
Administrative Services Organization (ASO) Human Resources Organization (HRO) Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Payroll Services Human Resources Workers Compensation Codes
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Inquiries  |  Partner Websites
SiteMap  | Trading Partners  | Register  | Case LawsFAQ | Employee Leasing Forum | Employee Leasing Directory  | Success Stories
Terms of Service  Copyright © 2004. “Employee-Leasing.org ”. All rights reserved.