In re S.A
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-675 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 December 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: Greene County No. 12 JA 42 S.A. Appeal by respondent-mother from order entered 3 April 2013 by Judge R. Les Turner in Greene County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 November 2013. Baddour, Parker & Hine, PC, by James W. Spicer, III, for petitioner-appellee Greene County Department of Social Services. McGuireWoods LLP, by T. Richmond McPherson, for Guardian ad litem. Ryan McKaig, for respondent-appellant mother. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Mother appeals from an order adjudicating the juvenile S.A. neglected and interest to concluding remain in that it was in the custody Department of Social Services ( DSS ). herein, we affirm. of the juvenile s the Greene best County For the reasons stated -2Soon after S.A. s birth in December 2012, DSS filed juvenile petition alleging that S.A. was neglected. a DSS had been involved with the family for several years due to mother s past neglect of her other children. based on DSS s concern that mother The petition was filed had neglected her other children, did not have stable housing, and faced the possibility of imprisonment probation. due The to noncompliance petition alleged with the terms that mother of had her been inconsistent in reporting to DSS where she resided and that one of the living arrangements she reported was not suitable for an infant. Additionally, mother did not have custody of her four other children. Guardianship of three of mother s children was placed with her mother, and the fourth child lived with the child s biological father. DSS obtained nonsecure custody of S.A. by order entered on 27 December 2012. The trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on 18 February 2013, hearing testimony from a DSS social worker, a DSS child welfare supervisor, and mother. In an order entered on 3 April 2013, the trial court adjudicated S.A. a neglected juvenile and concluded that the best interest promoted and served by continuing appeals. of the juvenile custody with DSS. would be Mother -3_________________________ On appeal, mother challenges the trial court s adjudication of neglect. In reviewing a trial court s adjudication of neglect, we must determine (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact. In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000). Findings of fact supported by competent evidence are binding on appeal, even findings. 523 if there may be evidence to support contrary In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. App. 337, 343, 648 S.E.2d 519, (2007), aff'd as modified, 362 N.C. 446, 665 S.E.2d 54 (2008). Although mother purports to challenge several adjudicatory findings of fact by stating that she respectfully challenges findings of fact 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, she fails findings are unsupported broadly argues insufficient previously to held that to the support that specifically by the trial its [a] argue that evidence. court s broadside of these Instead, findings conclusions any of of law. mother fact are We have exception . . . does not present for review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the entire body of the findings of fact. In re Beasley, 147 -4N.C. App. 399, 405, 555 S.E.2d 643, 647 (2001). As a result, the trial court s findings of fact are binding on appeal, and we are left to determine whether the trial court s findings support its conclusion[s] of law. See id. A neglected juvenile is defined as: A juvenile who does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile s parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker; or who has been abandoned; or who is not provided necessary medical care; or who is not provided necessary remedial care; or who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile s welfare; or who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2011). We have consistently held that an adjudication of neglect requires 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. re Safriet, (1993) 112 N.C. (internal App. quotation 747, 752, marks 436 S.E.2d omitted). 898, Mother s In 901-02 main argument, for which she recites this longstanding requirement, is that the trial court erred in adjudicating S.A. neglected because its findings are insufficient to support the conclusion that S.A. was harmed by substantial risk of harm. mother s actions or exposed to a -5Mother s argument is based, in part, on her claim that the trial court failed to take into account her explanation of the circumstances giving rise to DSS s concerns. This claim, however, amounts to an attack on the trial court s decision to give more weight to the testimony of the DSS social worker as opposed to that of mother. The trial court was entitled to find as it did, and it is not our duty to re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. See In re Hughes, 74 N.C. App. 751, 759, 330 S.E.2d 213, 218 (1985) ( The trial judge determines the weight to be given the testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If a different inference may be drawn from the evidence, he alone determines which inferences to draw and which to reject. ). Contrary to mother s assertion, the findings of fact are sufficient to support the conclusion that when S.A. was born, there was a substantial risk of harm to the juvenile. Mother did not have a stable living arrangement suitable for an infant at the time S.A. was born. She gave DSS three different addresses--the addresses of her mother, sister, and a cousin of S.A. s putative father--and later testified that she split her time between the homes of her mother and sister. Mother did not have adequate items to care for a newborn at any of the three -6homes, and her mother s home, where three of mother s other children resided, did not have sufficient space for mother and S.A. Moreover, the findings also establish that mother had a history with DSS and had been previously ordered by the trial court, in cases involving her other children, to obtain her GED, attend vocational rehabilitation, and maintain a stable residence. Mother, however, had not accomplished any of these directives. The trial court specifically found that mother had not properly cared for S.A. s siblings prior to their removal from her custody and that mother s previous neglect and actions with respect to her three older children and her failure to comply with the orders of this Court, indicate that she would not be able to care for this juvenile. The statutory definition of neglect provides that, [i]n determining whether a juvenile is a neglected juvenile, it is relevant whether that juvenile . . . lives in a home where another juvenile has been subjected to abuse or neglect by an adult who regularly lives in the home. 101(15). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- We have indicated that such circumstances are relevant to a neglect adjudication even if the juvenile in question never actually resided in the parent s home, as is the case here. See -7In re A.S., 190 N.C. App. 679, 690, 661 S.E.2d 313, 320 (2008) ( When . . . the juvenile being adjudicated has never resided in the parent s home, the decision of the trial court must of necessity be predictive in nature, as the trial 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. (quoting In re McLean, 135 N.C. App. 387, 396, 521 S.E.2d 121, 127 (1999))), aff d per curiam, 363 N.C. 254, 675 S.E.2d 361, reh g denied, 363 N.C. 381, 678 S.E.2d 231 (2009), appeal after remand, 203 N.C. App. 140, 693 S.E.2d 659 (2010). Therefore, contrary to mother s assertion, the trial court properly took into consideration the circumstances surrounding mother s other children in concluding that S.A. was neglected. See, e.g., In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423, 427, 610 S.E.2d 403, 406 (2005) (affirming conclusion adjudication of of neglect neglect with based, respect in part, on to mother s prior other children); In re E.N.S., 164 N.C. App. 146, 150 51, 595 S.E.2d 167, 170 (affirming adjudication of neglect based primarily on the circumstances regarding respondent s oldest child being adjudicated neglected and dependent ), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 189, 606 S.E.2d 903 (2004). -8Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the findings of fact are sufficient to support the conclusion that S.A. was subjected to a substantial risk of harm, and we affirm the order of the trial court. Affirmed. Judges GEER and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
