In re N.N., _ N.C. App. _ (October 15, 2024)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part; and Remanded

Facts: Mother and Father appeal the adjudication of their infant as abused and neglected. The child was born prematurely and spent four months in the NICU. DSS established a safety plan with the parents after receiving a report of Father mishandling the newborn and that hospital staff had asked each parent to leave due to their failure to follow NICU protocols. DSS received a second report that Father mishandled the newborn while in the NICU after instruction on safe handling. Both parents denied mishandling the child. The child was discharged to the parents from the NICU. At a home visit five days later, the social worker observed the child as healthy and doing well. Two days after the home visit, Parents brought the child to the ER for concerns with her eating and constipation. Upon arrival to the ER the child had stopped breathing and had to be revived multiple times. Testing revealed the child had multiple severe injuries which a physician later determined were non-accidental and highly concerning for abusive head trauma resulting in a near-fatal event. Parents denied causing the child’s injuries and did not give any explanation for the injuries. DSS filed the abuse and neglect petition and obtained nonsecure custody of the child. The child was hospitalized for three months and placed in foster care upon discharge. At the adjudicatory hearing, DSS only offered as evidence the testimony of the social worker who testified as to the truth and accuracy of the allegations in the petition, which was then admitted into evidence without objection. Parents nor DSS offered any additional evidence. Mother and Father appeal the adjudication order, arguing the findings are unsupported by the evidence, the only evidence presented was inadmissible, and that the parents’ inability to explain the child’s injuries cannot alone support the adjudications.
Appellate courts review an adjudication order “to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 8 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
An abused juvenile is one whose parent “inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the juvenile a serious physical injury by other than accidental means”. Sl. Op. at 8, quoting G.S. 7B-101(1). Appellate courts have upheld abuse adjudications where the child sustains unexplained, non-accidental injuries and clear and convincing evidence supports “the inference that the respondent-parents inflicted the injuries or allowed them to be inflicted.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted).
A neglected juvenile is one whose parents “[d]o not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline [or c]reate or allow[ ] to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” Sl. Op. at 9, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15). A court must find “some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide proper care, supervision, or discipline.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted). For newborns, “the decision of the [district] court must of necessity be predictive in nature, as the [district] court must assess whether there is a substantial risk of future abuse or neglect of a child based on the historical facts of the case.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted).
Relying on the supreme court’s ruling in In re Z.G.J., 378 N.C. 500 (2021) (upholding the adjudication of grounds to terminate parental rights), the court of appeals held that the trial court did not err in relying on the brief live testimony of the social worker where the social worker testified as to the truthfulness and accuracy of the allegations in the petition and the court admitted the verified petition into evidence. The social worker is not required to “adopt” the contents of the petition during live testimony in order for the court to rely on the contents of the petition as evidence. Parents were given the opportunity but declined to cross-examine the social worker or dispute the allegations, and stated they had no objection to admitting the verified petition as evidence. Parents failed to preserve any argument as to the admissibility of the testimony or petition as evidence on appeal.
The court rejected Father’s argument that the trial court erred in basing its adjudication solely on finding that the parents could not explain the child’s injuries. The court permissibly inferred and made findings that parents inflicted or allowed to be inflicted the child’s severe injuries based on the evidence in the petition and reaffirmed by the social worker’s testimony of Father’s handling of the child in the NICU, the parents being asked to leave the NICU, the child’s severe injuries following a visit from the social worker two days earlier when the child appeared healthy, and the parents’ admission that the child was in their sole care when the injuries were sustained.