In re G.C.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA22-38 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: G.C., Juvenile. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June 2022.
Appeal by Respondent from order entered 19 October 2021 by Judge Cheri Siler Mack in Cumberland County No. 20JA111 District Court.
Patrick A. Kuchyt for Petitioner-Appellee Cumberland County Department of Social Services.
Vitrano Law Offices, by Sean P. Vitrano, for Respondent-Appellant Father.
McGuireWoods LLP, by Anita M. Foss, for guardian ad litem.
¶ 1 Respondent-Father appeals from the trial court's Adjudication and Disposition Order adjudicating his child G.C. ("Glenda"),[1] a neglected juvenile. The Record reflects the following:
¶ 2 On 13 March 2020, Cumberland County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a Petition alleging that Glenda was a neglected and dependent juvenile. The trial court held adjudication and disposition hearings on 27 August 2021. As part of the adjudication hearing, the parties submitted a written stipulation of facts focused primarily on the underlying facts of Respondent-Mother's previous cases with her two older children[2] and the death of Respondent-Parents' infant child Gary[3], Glenda's younger sibling.
¶ 3 On 19 October 2021, the trial court entered its Adjudication and Disposition Order adjudicating Glenda a "neglected juvenile within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15), inasmuch as the juvenile did not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from their parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker, and the juvenile lived in an environment injurious to [her] welfare."[4] In this Order, the trial court made findings, based on the facts stipulated to by the parties, detailing Mother's previous DSS cases with the older children and her conviction of misdemeanor child abuse.
¶ 4 In particular, the trial court found: Glenda was approximately 1 1/2 years old at the time of the filing of the Petition.[5] Mother has two older children who were previously adjudicated abused, neglected, and dependent and have been in DSS custody since 28 December 2017.[6] On 6 November 2019, Mother was convicted of misdemeanor child abuse and placed on probation because of her actions with the two older children.
¶ 5 Gary was born in December 2019 to Respondent-Parents. On 12 March 2020, Mother was caring for Gary while Father was at work. Mother placed Gary in a" 'Pack n Play' and propped a bottle for him to feed[.]" Mother came in at one point to burp Gary, then placed him back in the "Pack n Play" on his side with several blankets. Approximately three hours later, Mother checked on Gary and found him unresponsive. Mother ran to the paternal grandmother's house who lived nearby, and the grandmother instructed Mother to call 911. Gary was pronounced dead at the scene. That day, Parents agreed to allow Glenda to temporarily live with her paternal grandmother.
¶ 6 In addition to these findings, the trial court also included as findings of fact:
¶ 7 The trial court concluded as a matter of law that Glenda was a neglected juvenile. In the Disposition portion of the Order, the trial court ordered Glenda remain in DSS custody and provided for visitation with Respondent-Parents. Father timely filed Notice of Appeal on 28 October 2021.
¶ 8 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court's adjudicatory Findings of Fact support its Conclusion of Law that Glenda is a neglected juvenile.
¶ 9 Our review of an adjudication of neglect is constrained to whether the trial court's conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact. See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111, 316 S.E.2d 246, 253 (1984) (citation omitted). "[I]n a non-jury neglect adjudication, the trial court's findings of fact supported by clear and convincing competent evidence are deemed conclusive, even where some evidence supports contrary findings." In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1, 8, 822 S.E.2d 693, 698 (2019) (citations omitted). "Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal." In re K.S., 380 N.C. 60, 2022-NCSC-7, ¶ 8. A trial court's adjudication of neglect is a conclusion of law that this Court reviews de novo. Id. at ¶ 8 (citation omitted); In re W.C.T., 280 N.C.App. 17, 2021-NCCOA-559, ¶ 27 (citations omitted).
¶ 10 As an initial matter, as part of his broader challenge to the trial court's neglect adjudication, Respondent-Father challenges two of the trial court's findings: Findings of Fact 34 and 36. In Finding of Fact 34, the trial court recited[7] a portion of the Report of Autopsy Examination performed on Gary:
34. That the medical examiner's autopsy report on [Gary] dated 3/13/20, stated that (Emphasis in original).
Specifically, Respondent-Father asserts this Finding "omits the Medical Examiner's conclusion that it was possible that Gary's death was caused by sudden infant death syndrome." Respondent-Father is correct the Medical Examiner's report also noted the findings "could be consistent with a diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome." Indeed, the report concludes "the cause and manner of death are best classified as undetermined." However, we do not read Finding 34 as the trial court making any final determination of Gary's cause of death. We read it in context with the other findings that: Respondent-Parents had been instructed on proper sleeping arrangements for children; later, Gary was found unresponsive in the Pack 'n' Play with blankets; first-responders observed signs consistent with asphyxiation; and the Medical Examiner noted such a sleeping environment at less than one year old was a risk factor for asphyxiation and thus could not be ruled out as a cause of death. Taken together, these Findings tend to show Respondent-Parents caused Gary to be in an injurious environment at the time of his death.
¶ 11 Finding 36 states:
36. The evidence presented rises to the level of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) in that the juvenile lived in an environment injurious to the juvenile's welfare; and that the juvenile does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's parent, guardian, custodian. Therefore, the juvenile is a neglected juvenile pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15).
Although denominated as a Finding of Fact by the trial court, "[t]he determination of neglect requires the application of the legal principles set forth in [the neglect statute] and is therefore a conclusion of law." In re Helms, 127 N.C.App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675-76 (1997). Because this Finding is more properly designated a Conclusion of Law, we treat it as such for the purposes of this appeal. Id. In so doing, we review it in connection with the trial court's denominated Conclusion of Law 2 that Glenda "is a neglected juvenile" and its decree Glenda "is hereby adjudicated a neglected juvenile[.]"
¶ 12 Respondent-Father argues the trial court erred in making these legal conclusions and adjudicating Glenda as neglected because "Mother's previous cases and convictions of misdemeanor child abuse involving her other children do not support an adjudication of current or future neglect as to Glenda." DSS, for its part, "does not take a position" on whether the trial court's Findings support its neglect adjudication. The Guardian ad Litem, however, contends the Findings of Fact do support an adjudication of neglect.
¶ 13 A "[n]eglected juvenile" is defined, in relevant part, as "[a]ny juvenile less than 18 years of age . . . whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker . . . [d]oes not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline . . . [or] [c]reates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile's welfare." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2021). Relevant to the determination of a neglected juvenile is "whether that juvenile lives in a home where another juvenile has died as a result of suspected abuse or neglect or lives in a home where another juvenile has been subjected to abuse or neglect by an adult who regularly lives in the home." Id.
¶ 14 "The neglect statute 'neither dictates how much weight should be given to a prior neglect adjudication, nor suggests that a prior adjudication is determinative.'" In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 9, 822 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting In re A.K., 360...
To continue reading
Request your trial