In re L.C., _ N.C. App. _ (Apr. 16, 2024)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Vacated and Remanded

Facts: DSS filed a petition alleging the juvenile as neglected and dependent based on history of substance use by Mother and Mother’s live-in female partner. The petition alleged there were three prior CPS reports and resulting assessments based on the juvenile testing positive for substances at birth, Mother and her partner’s reported substance use, and instances of the juvenile stepping on Mother’s needle and imitating using a needle on her arm with a plastic children’s syringe. The most recent CPS report and assessment resulting in the petition was based on Mother giving birth to twin siblings of the juvenile who tested positive for substances; Mother’s and partner’s denial of substance use; Mother’s refusal to permit drug testing for herself and the juvenile; and Mother’s and partner’s violation of the safety plan that provided for the juvenile to be placed in a temporary safety placement with the partner’s mother. Note, Mother relinquished her rights to the twins; this action solely involves the older sibling. At the adjudication hearing, the DSS social worker testified Mother refused drug screening for herself and the juvenile but admitted to using substances and having a history of addiction; appeared agitated at DSS’s involvement; threatened a relative; and discussed concerns regarding rats in the home. The juvenile was adjudicated neglected, and custody was ordered with DSS. Mother appeals the adjudication order, arguing eight findings are irrelevant and the court’s conclusion of neglect is not supported by the findings. Mother’s partner also appealed the adjudication order which the court of appeals dismissed for lack of standing under G.S. 7B-1002, finding the partner’s status to be that of a caretaker under G.S. Chapter 7B.
Adjudications are reviewed to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the findings support the conclusion of law. The reviewing court must consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the findings are sufficient to support the court’s conclusion. “Only the trial court has the duty to evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and based up that evaluation, to make findings of fact.” Sl. Op. at 25 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
G.S. 7B-101(15) defines a neglected juvenile to include “[a]ny juvenile less than [eighteen] years of age. . . whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker. . . [d]oes not provide proper care, supervision or discipline . . . [or c]reated a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” Sl. Op. at 22, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15).
For a neglect adjudication, appellate courts have required “that there be some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide proper care, supervision, or discipline” or “that the environment in which the child resided has resulted in harm to the child or substantial risk of harm to the child.” Sl. Op. at 22-23 (citations omitted). The supreme court has stated there is no requirement that the trial court make a specific written finding of substantial risk but the trial court “must make written findings of fact sufficient to support its conclusion of law of neglect.” Sl. Op. at 23 (citation omitted). When no ultimate finding is made to show impairment or substantial risk of impairment, appellate courts “have consistently reviewed the trial court’s evidentiary findings, as opposed to reweighing the evidence, to determine whether the findings show impairment or a substantial risk of impairment.” Sl. Op. at 33. “[A] parent’s substance abuse problem alone [does] not support an adjudication of neglect.” Sl. Op. at 28 (citation omitted).
Five of the eight challenged findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, including Mother’s and social worker’s testimonies, and determined to be relevant to the adjudication. But, some findings were recitations of evidence making it unclear on appellate review what the court determined about the evidence. Mother successfully challenged as irrelevant findings regarding post-petition evidence of Mother’s mental state and substance use and Mother’s refusal to provide her source for substances at the adjudication hearing. The court also disregarded the dispositional finding relating to the best interest of the juvenile in not returning home (though the court notes that including this finding and related conclusion in the adjudication order was not error since the finding supports the interim dispositional ruling). The finding that the court had no knowledge of what “spore to spore” meant regarding why the child would test positive for substances was disregarded as unsupported due to both Mother and social worker testifying to the term’s meaning.
The findings are insufficient to support the conclusion that the juvenile was neglected because there are no evidentiary findings showing the juvenile suffered any physical, mental, or emotional impairment, or that there was a substantial risk of impairment, though evidence in the record could support such findings. Findings clearly establish Mother’s prior history with DSS, Mother’s obstinance in working with DSS, Mother’s threatening behavior, and that there was a discussion with DSS of safety concerns in the home. However, DSS found in its previous assessments that the juvenile was healthy and well cared for by partner’s mother in the home. The court made no findings about whether drugs were used in the presence of the juvenile or that the juvenile was exposed to substances, the impact of Mother’s violation of the safety plan on the juvenile, the risk of harm to the juvenile of Mother’s threatening behavior toward the relative, or that the home was unsuitable or unsafe for the juvenile.
Having vacated and remanded the adjudication order on which the disposition order is based, the disposition order is also vacated and remanded.