In re E.H., ___ N.C. App. ___ (June 4, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded
There is a dissent
by Stroud, J.
- Facts: Mother and Father appeal the adjudication of their two children, one of whom was adjudicated abused and neglected and the other of whom was adjudicated neglected. DSS filed a petition and obtained nonsecure custody of the juveniles following Mother taking the three-week old infant to the ER for what she described as a pop in his arm while changing his diaper. Medical screenings showed the child suffered several acute bone fractures, including the humerus, ribs, and metaphysis. Mother and Father denied any abuse or events that would cause the infant’s injuries both at the hospital and when interviewed by DSS and stated the juvenile was always under mother’s supervision . During the adjudication hearing that spanned several months, DSS presented expert testimony to show the child’s injuries would have required significant force to inflict and are highly indicative of child abuse in a three-week old, nonambulatory child. Mother and Father challenge the findings as unsupported by the evidence and the conclusion that the infant is an abused juvenile. The court of appeals affirmed the infant's ajudication as neglected, and vacated the adjudication of the older sibling as neglected; the neglect adjudications are summarized separately.
- “In reviewing an adjudication order, this Court must determine “(1) whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the legal conclusions are supported by the findings of fact.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). “[T]he trial court’s findings of fact supported by clear and convincing competent evidence are deemed conclusive, even where some evidence supports contrary findings.” Sl. Op. at 8-9 (citation omitted).
- “An ‘[a]bused’ juvenile is one ‘whose parent, guardian, or caretaker’ either ‘[i]nflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the juvenile a serious physical injury by other than accidental means.’ Sl. Op. at 9, quoting G.S. 7B-101(1)(a).Challenged findings regarding Mother and Father being sole caretakers of the infant since birth and the child’s serious, nonaccidental injuries are supported by clear and convincing evidence, including social worker and expert testimony. The court weighed the conflicting expert testimony offered by Mother and Father regarding other possible medical explanations for the child’s serious injuries. The court found the expert witness testimony provided by the parents’ experts “were not based on ‘sound, scientific principles and methos’ and lacked ‘credibility.’ ” Sl. Op. at 13. The court exercised its discretion and found the evidence presented by DSS expert testimony more credible. The findings support the conclusion that the parents inflicted or allowed to be inflicted serious physical injury by nonaccidental means.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Abuse