In re J.A.M.

• Citation: 822 S.E.2d 693,372 N.C. 1
• Decision Date: 01 February 2019
• Docket Number: No. 7PA17-2,7PA17-2
• Parties: In the MATTER OF: J.A.M.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

372 N.C. 1

822 S.E.2d 693

In the MATTER OF: J.A.M.

No. 7PA17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed February 1, 2019

Matthew D. Wunsche, GAL Appellate Counsel, and Caroline P. Mackie, Raleigh, for appellee Guardian ad Litem; and Marc S. Gentile, Associate County Attorney, for petitioner-appellee Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for respondent-appellant mother.

HUDSON, Justice.

The case comes to us based on a dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals. The sole issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals majority correctly determined that the clear and convincing evidence and the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that the juvenile J.A.M. was neglected. Because we conclude that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact based on evidence of conditions at the relevant time to support its conclusion of neglect, we affirm.

Background

J.A.M. was born in January 2016. In late February 2016, Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services (YFS) received a child protective services report making the department aware of J.A.M.’s birth, and YFS immediately opened an investigation. On 29 February, YFS filed a juvenile petition alleging that J.A.M. was not safe in the home because of the histories of both parents.¹

On 30 March 2016, a hearing regarding J.A.M. took place before Mecklenburg County District Court Judge Louis A. Trosch, who entered a consolidated adjudicatory and dispositional order in J.A.M.’s case based on testimony and exhibits admitted as evidence to the court. The court adjudicated J.A.M. neglected and, in the dispositional phase of the proceeding, ordered reunification efforts with J.A.M.’s mother (respondent-mother) to cease and established that the primary plan of care for J.A.M. would be reunification with her father (respondent-father).²

Respondent-mother has a significant history of involvement with YFS extending back to 2007 relating to children born prior to J.A.M.³ Significant evidence relating to YFS’ previous interactions with respondent-mother involving her older children was entered into the record in the adjudication phase of J.A.M.’s case. The evidence before the trial court tended to show that respondent-mother has a long history of violent relationships with the fathers of her previous six children, during which her children "not only witnessed domestic violence, but were caught in the middle of physical altercations." Furthermore, during this period, she repeatedly declined services from YFS and "continued to deny, minimize and avoid talking about incidences of violence." All of this resulted in her three oldest children first entering the custody of YFS on 24 February 2010.

The most serious incident occurred in June 2012 when respondent-mother was in a relationship with E.G. Sr., the father of her child E.G. Jr., a relationship that—like prior relationships between respondent-mother and other men—had a component of domestic violence. Respondent-mother had recently represented to the court that "her relationship with [E.G. Sr.] was over" and stated that she "realized that the relationship with [E.G. Sr.] was bad for her children"; however, she quickly invited E.G. Sr. back into her home. Following another domestic violence incident between respondent-mother and E.G. Sr., E.G. Jr. "was placed in an incredibly unsafe situation sleeping on the sofa with [E.G. Sr.]" for the night, which resulted in E.G. Jr. suffering severe, life-threatening injuries, including multiple skull fractures

, at the hands of E.G. Sr. The next morning, respondent-mother "observed [E.G. Jr.’s] swollen head, his failure to respond, [and] his failure to open his eyes or move his limbs," but she did not dial 911 for over two hours. Following this incident, respondent-mother's children re-entered the custody of YFS. Afterwards, she refused to acknowledge E.G. Jr.’s "significant special needs" that resulted from his injuries, maintaining that "there [was] nothing wrong with him" and "stat[ing] that he [did] not need all the services that [were] being recommended for him." Respondent-mother proceeded to have another child with E.G. Sr. when he was out on bond for charges of felony child abuse.

In response to respondent-mother's failure to protect E.G. Jr., as well as her other children, her parental rights to the six children she had at the time were terminated in an order filed on 21 April 2014 by Judge Trosch. The 2014 termination order was based largely on the court's finding that she had "not taken any steps to change the pattern of domestic violence and lack of stability for the children since 2007."

At the 30 March 2016 adjudication hearing for J.A.M., the court received into evidence several exhibits that included the 21 April 2014 order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights to her six older children, a 27 February 2013 adjudication and disposition order regarding five of those children, and a certified copy of the criminal record of respondent-father showing that he had been convicted twice in 2013 for assault on a female.⁴

In addition to receiving these exhibits into the record, the court also heard testimony from several witnesses. Stephanie West, social work supervisor at Mecklenburg County Child Protective Services, testified that when the department received the report regarding J.A.M., a social worker was assigned to go to the home and perform a safety assessment in light of both parents’ prior YFS involvement. Both parents declined to sign the safety assessment. A department representative returned the following day to talk with respondent-mother about setting up a Child Family Team meeting, but she "adamantly stated she was not interested." Ms. West further discussed respondent-mother's viewpoint at the second visit.

Q. And when she said she was not interested, not interested in what?

A. More services. She was not going to engage in any services. She reported that she had gone through services, she didn't need any services, there were [sic] no current domestic violence going on, and she was -- and that was pretty-much [sic] all she had to say.

Respondent-mother also testified at the hearing and was asked questions on two subjects pertinent to this appeal: (1) her familiarity with respondent-father's domestic violence history, and (2) her understanding of what had led to the termination of her parental rights to her older children.

Respondent-mother stated that she knew the "warning signs" of domestic violence to look for in a relationship. However, she subsequently testified that she was aware that respondent-father had been arrested for assault on a female in a case involving his sister but acknowledged that she had never asked him whether he did, in fact, commit the assault.

Similarly, when asked what she learned from having her parental rights terminated to her six older children, respondent-mother generally admitted to "bad decisions" and "bad choices" in the past, noting that she had since "learned to put my children first, before men."

Nonetheless, respondent-mother subsequently testified further about her prior YFS case:

Q. Why were your rights terminated?

A. Because when my child came back into -- my kids came back into custody, due to my child being physical injury by his father, [E.G. Sr]. That's --

Q. So your understanding is that your rights to your six other children was -- were terminated because of one child being physically abused?

A. Oh, yes, ma'am. ... because I had completed all my services and did everything that was asked of me to do, up until my child got hurt by his father.

Regarding her role in that abuse, respondent-mother testified:

Q. And what role do you think you played in your child getting hurt by that father?

A. I was upstairs sleeping.

Q. Okay.

A. I didn't have -- I didn't have a role into what my child being hurt. I didn't play a role in that.

Q. And so basically, do you feel that your rights to the six other children, your rights were unjustly terminated?

A. Yes, ma'am. I do feel that way.

After reviewing the exhibits and hearing the testimony, the trial court concluded that J.A.M. was neglected because:

Juv[enile] resides in an environment in which both parents have a [history] of domestic violence/assault and each parent had a child enter [YFS] custody that was deemed abused while in the care of each parent. All of juveniles’ siblings were adjudicated neglected. No evidence the parents have remedied the injurious environment they created for their other children.

(Emphasis added.) In support of its conclusion, the trial court made the following additional findings of fact:

Clear and convincing evidence juv[enile] is neglected. [Respondent-mother]’s testimony was telling today. Additionally, parents failed to make any substantive progress in their prior cases which resulted in [termination of parental rights] for [respondent-mother] and [Father]’s child was placed in the custody of that child's mother. [Department] attempted to engage parents when it received a referral and both parents declined to work [with Department] and reported not needing any services. [Respondent-mother] testified. [Maternal grandmother] and [Social Work Supervisor] West all testified. Previously [respondent-mother]’s children were returned to her care and ended up back in [YFS’] custody due to the abuse of one of the juveniles and it appeared [respondent-mother] was not demonstrating skills learned [from] service providers. [Father] did not dispute allegations in the petition. [Respondent-mother] has a [history] of dating violent men and [Father] in this case has been found guilty at least twice for assault on a female. [Respondent-mother] acknowledged being aware [Father] had been charged [with] assaulting his sister but [respondent-mother] said she never asked [Father] if he assaulted his sister despite testifying about the "red flags" she learned in DV servs.

...