In The Matter Of: J.C
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA12-274 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 September 2012 IN THE MATTER OF: J.L.C. Buncombe County No. 08 J 394 Appeal by respondent father from order entered 14 December 2011 by Judge Court. Rebecca B. Knight in Buncombe County District Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 2012. Matthew J. Putnam for Buncombe County Department of Social Services, petitioner-appellee. M. Carridy Bender for guardian ad litem. Robert W. Ewing for father, respondent-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Respondent father appeals from the trial court s adjudicating J.L.C. ( John )1 a neglected juvenile. order We affirm the trial court s order. On 19 July 2011, Buncombe County Department of Social Services ( petitioner ) filed a juvenile petition alleging John 1 John is juvenile. a pseudonym used to protect the privacy of the -2to be a neglected juvenile. The petition alleged that John would be at risk if left in the care of [his mother] as she has a serious, ongoing substance abuse problem that prevents her from providing appropriate care for [John]. The petition further alleged respondent father is a convicted sex offender and unable respondent to provide father is appropriate only allowed care for [John]. supervised The contact with [John]. On 2 November 2011, adjudication hearing. the juvenile the trial court conducted The mother stipulated to allegations in petition as amended in court. Thereafter, petitioner called respondent father to give testimony. respondent father s an testimony was completed, the Once trial court took judicial notice of findings of fact in prior orders entered in the case. presented. Petitioner rested and no further evidence was By order entered 14 December 2011, the trial court adjudicated John neglected. Respondent father Respondent father appeals. argues the trial court erred in concluding that John was a neglected juvenile based upon the mother s stipulations. Respondent father argues the mother s stipulations were not binding on him, and petitioner was not relieved from producing evidence of the allegations in the -3petition. Respondent father states the trial court made multiple findings of fact (findings of fact 8, 10-23, and 26) concerning resulted the in petitioner conduct mother John being failed to and to support in how a present these her state substance of neglect any evidence findings of of fact. abuse issues but contends the mother s Therefore, respondent father argues that without findings based on clear and convincing evidence, the trial court could not conclude John was neglected, and the trial court s order should be reversed. [S]tipulations are judicial admissions and are therefore binding in every sense, preventing the party who agreed to the stipulation from introducing evidence to dispute it and relieving the other party of the necessity of producing evidence to establish an admitted fact. In re I.S., 170 N.C. App. 78, 86, 611 S.E.2d 467, 472 (2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. Poole, 54 N.C. App. 239, 241, 282 S.E.2d 515, 517 (1981)). Here, John s mother stipulated to facts alleged in the petition concerning her conduct, and petitioner was relieved of the necessity of producing evidence to establish those facts. Respondent father did not object to the stipulations nor did he introduce evidence to dispute the stipulations. allegations in the petition concerning As for the respondent father, -4petitioner put on evidence in the form of respondent father s testimony. We therefore conclude the trial court s findings of fact were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, could not father s to be the adjudicated conduct, neglect[,] and extent we neglected note dependency respondent that father based [t]he proceedings is contends upon respondent purpose for John of the abuse, court to determine whether the juvenile should be adjudicated as having the status of abused, neglected[,] or dependent. In re J.S., 182 N.C. App. 79, 86, 641 S.E.2d 395, 399 (2007). The question before us on appeal is not the culpability regarding an individual parent s conduct but whether the trial court made proper findings juvenile. and conclusions regarding the status of the Id. We find the trial court did not err in adjudicating John to be a neglected juvenile. The order affirmed. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and BEASLEY concur. Report per Rule 30(e). of the trial court is
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
