In re A.J., ___ N.C. ___ (August 23, 2024)
Held:
Reversed and Remanded
- Facts and procedural history: This appeal involves the adjudication of three children as neglected, and also the two older children as dependent, based on three incidents reported to DSS. The reported incidents involved interactions between Mother and one of the older children. The first incident alleged an altercation between Mother and the older child, where the child refused to exit the car; Mother attempted to remove the child from the car; the child locked herself in the car; Mother broke the car window to unlock the car, slapped and hit the child with a belt, and choked and threatened to kill the child. A second incident alleged Mother choked the child and threw her out of the car. The third incident alleged Mother locked the child out of the house following an argument; when a social worker arrived, law enforcement had handcuffed Mother to calm her down, which was witnessed by the youngest juvenile who was visibly upset, while the older child sought safety at a neighbor’s. The trial court based some of its findings on inadmissible hearsay consisting of statements made by the child to the social workers. The trial court also made findings about mother’s mental and emotional health, some of which was based on mother’s behavior during the adjudicatory hearing. The court of appeals disregarded the trial court’s findings of fact based on the inadmissible hearsay statements of the child and held the unsupported findings were insufficient to conclude the children neglected and the two older children dependent. The court of appeals reversed the order with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the petitions. DSS and the Guardian ad litem jointly petitioned the supreme court for discretionary review.
- “A neglected juvenile is one whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker ‘does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline’ or who ‘creates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.’ ” Sl. Op. at 11, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15). When the juvenile is not currently residing in the parent’s home, the trial court must determine “whether there is a substantial risk of future neglect based on the historical facts of the case.” Sl. Op. at 11. The supreme court rejected the court of appeals categorical statement that corporal punishment without physical marks or injury is not neglect and instead recognized the need for a case-specific analysis stating, “[t]here are scenarios where discipline of a child can constitute neglect when the discipline causes little or no physical injury.” Sl. Op. at 13, n. 5.
- “A dependent juvenile is one whose ‘parent, guardian, or custodian is unable to provide for the juvenile’s care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.’ ” Sl. Op. at 11, quoting G.S. 7B-101(19). The trial court “must consider the conditions as they exist at the time of the adjudication as well as the risk of harm to the child from return to a parent. . . when considering whether a juvenile is dependent.” Sl. Op. at 12 (citation omitted).
- Challenged findings supported solely by the child’s statements to social workers were properly disregarded as unsupported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, including that Mother used a shovel to smash the car window, choked the child, and threatened to kill the child during the first reported incident; that Mother choke-slammed the child and threw her out of the car in the second reported incident; and that Mother locked the child out of the house (as opposed to leaving the child outside) during the third reported incident. The remaining portions of the trial court’s findings relating to the first and third reported incidents are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, including Mother’s own admissions and the testimony of social workers and law enforcement.
- Challenged findings regarding Mother’s mental health condition are unsupported by the evidence. The record does not include expert testimony from a qualified health professional or admissible documentary evidence of a past diagnosis typically required for a finding that a person suffers from a mental illness. Social worker testimony and the trial court’s observations of Mother’s behavior do not support a finding that Mother had been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Noting In re L.N.H., 382 N.C. 536 (2022), the trial court considers the existence or nonexistence of the conditions in the petition, which “focuses on the status of the child at the time the petition is filed, not the post-petition actions of a party.” Sl. Op. at 9, n. 4. The remaining finding that Mother exhibited extremely hostile and aggressive behavior and refused to follow the recommended case plan to address those issues is supported by the evidence.
- The remaining, properly supported findings are insufficient to support the trial court’s adjudication of the three children as neglected and the older two children as dependent. The remaining supported findings show Mother’s pattern of putting her child in situations that are potentially injurious to her welfare (leaving child outside and why child was locked in car); Mother exhibiting hostile and aggressive behavior during the reported incidents, acknowledging the need for a mental health assessment but later refusing to do so and denying having any mental health issues; and Mother lacking an alternative child care arrangement. These “bare findings” do not demonstrate “how these incidents established that the children were not receiving proper care, supervision, or discipline, or were living in an injurious environment . . . [but] [i]mportantly, there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record that could support the necessary findings.” Sl. Op. at 13 (emphasis in original). The proper disposition is to vacate and remand the order to the trial court to enter a new order on the existing record or conduct further necessary proceedings in its discretion.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect