The paternal grandmother of K. I. S. appeals from an order of the juvenile court providing, inter alia, that any contact between the grandmother and the child occur at the discretion of the legal custodians of the child. The record shows that the grandmother previously had physical and legal custody of the child but that in November 2006, the child was adjudicated deprived and placed in the custody of an aunt and uncle because, due to her age, the grandmother was no longer able to care for the child. Recognizing the bond that existed between them, that order further provided for some visitation rights one Saturday per month and phone calls two per week between the grandmother and K.However, the order also imposed conditions on these rights: The Court is aware that abuses have occurred of making Emergency calls under circumstances where no emergency existed. The Court is also aware that undue pressure has been put on this six-year-old child during phone calls with the grandmother, resulting in the child becoming upset. The court places the grandmother on notice that such conduct is contrary to the Child’s best interests and will not be tolerated. Refusal to comply with the terms of this order including the limitations as to the frequency and number of calls shall result in contempt proceedings against the offending party, with a fine, incarceration or modification of the order being the possible outcome. Subsequently, the custodians ceased allowing K. I. S. to have contact with the grandmother because they believed that the contact was causing K. I. S. to experience fear, anxiety and nightmares, and the grandmother filed a motion seeking to hold them in contempt of the November order. A guardian ad litem was appointed, who filed a motion to amend the visitation provisions of the previous order. The custodians also filed a motion, inter alia, to amend the November order so that the grandmother would have no contact with K. I. S. Following a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order awarding permanent custody of the child to her aunt and uncle; this order also provided that there would be no court-ordered or mandatory visitation or contact between the grandmother and K. I. S. and that any contact would be in the discretion of the custodians. It is from this order that the grandmother appeals.
1. The grandmother first argues that the juvenile court erred by allowing hearsay testimony, over objection, as a basis for its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, the grandmother contends the trial court erred by admitting testimony from the child’s teacher and school counselor concerning statements made to them by the child concerning her fear of her grandmother, that she had nightmares about her grandmother, and that she did not want to visit her grandmother alone. The grandmother also contends the trial court erred in admitting and relying upon testimony from the custodial aunt concerning the child’s fears and nightmares about her grandmother, as well as statements the child told her aunt the grandmother made to her about other relatives.
