In re L.N.H.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 393PA20 |
| Citation | 382 N.C. 536,879 S.E.2d 138 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF L.N.H. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Mercedes O. Chut, Greensboro, for appellant Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services.
Matthew D. Wunsche, Durham, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.
Jeffrey L. Miller, Greenville, for appellant respondent-mother.
¶ 1 Appellant Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services (DSS) appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed in part and vacated in part the trial court's adjudications of abuse, neglect, and dependency, as well as the disposition and permanency planning order in the matter of L.N.H. In re L.N.H. , 272 N.C. App. 695, 845 S.E.2d 209, 2020 WL 4462550 (2020) (unpublished). DSS filed a petition for discretionary review on September 8, 2020. Respondent-mother filed a conditional petition for discretionary review on September 28, 2020. We allowed both petitions on December 14, 2021.
¶ 2 Lea1 was born in February 2019. On May 7, 2019, DSS began an investigation after receiving a report regarding Lea's hospitalization. The report alleged that respondent-mother punched Lea in the chest, sprayed a green liquid on Lea, waved a lighter near Lea's face, and burned Lea's feet with a lighter. The report also alleged that Lea was subsequently left outside on the porch unattended. Respondent-mother was arrested and charged with felony child abuse inflicting serious injury and held in the Guilford County Jail under a $500,000.00 bond. Medical records obtained by DSS from the hospital confirmed that Lea suffered burns to her feet.
¶ 3 Social worker Jerin Elliot interviewed respondent-mother in jail on May 8, 2019. Consistent with her statement to another social worker on the day of the incident, respondent-mother told Elliott that she did not remember the events leading to Lea's hospitalization; she only remembered that she had put the child to bed, drank alcohol, and then went to sleep. Respondent-mother admitted she suffered from depression and had not been taking her medication. She further identified Bruce Rutledge as Lea's father, but she did not have his contact information. Elliott's investigation further revealed that respondent-mother told her mother that when Lea was taken to the hospital for treatment, respondent-mother thought the child was still in the home.
¶ 4 On May 8, 2019, Lea's maternal great-grandmother and other family members informed DSS that they would be willing to take care of Lea; however, no home study had been completed when the petition was filed. Lea's family members also identified respondent-father as the child's father and stated that he had been in and out of prison and had active warrants against him.2
¶ 5 On May 9, 2019, DSS obtained nonsecure custody of Lea after filing a petition alleging that Lea was abused, neglected, and dependent.
¶ 6 On July 31, 2019, the trial court held an adjudication, disposition, and permanency planning hearing. At the hearing, Elliot testified about the investigation. When asked if DSS had received a report regarding the family, respondent-mother objected to testimony concerning the report on hearsay grounds. DSS argued the report was not being offered for the truth of the allegations set forth in the report, but to show why DSS became involved with the family. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed Elliot to testify.
¶ 7 Later, Elliot testified that DSS had received medical records regarding Lea's injuries. The trial court took judicial notice of a medical records exhibit, which the court had admitted in a previous nonsecure custody hearing without objection.3 The medical records detailed how Lea was transferred to the hospital. The summary stated, "[Lea] is a 2 month old female ... who was transferred from [a different] hospital where she was initially brought ... by [Lea's] neighbors who witnessed [respondent-]mother abusing [Lea] physically." The medical records further contained a History of Present Illness section, which stated, "the neighbors saw [respondent-]mother burning [Lea]’s feet with [a] cigarette light[er], punching her in the abdomen and spraying her face with Windex."
¶ 8 On August 23, 2019, the trial court adjudicated Lea an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. The trial court found that Lea had sustained injuries related to respondent-mother "punching [her] in the chest, allowing green liquid to be placed across [her] face, and allowing [her] to sustain serious burns to her feet, as [a result of respondent-] mother being under the influence of alcohol, based upon her own admission." The trial court also determined that Lea was left outside on the steps of the home after sustaining these injuries.
¶ 9 The trial court ordered that legal and physical custody remain with DSS, but that custody be transferred to Lea's relatives once they complied with certain requirements. The court also found that reunification with respondent-mother would be unsuccessful and ordered DSS to cease reunification efforts with her. Respondent-mother's visitation rights with Lea were terminated.
¶ 10 Respondent-mother appealed. On August 4, 2020, the Court of Appeals held that respondent-mother was denied a fair hearing and the trial court erred in adjudicating Lea an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. In re L.N.H. , 272 N.C. App. 695, 2020 WL 4462550, at *6. Specifically, the Court of Appeals determined that respondent-mother's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of Lea's medical records and that the trial court improperly considered Elliot's testimony regarding the neighbors’ report as substantive evidence. Id. at *5–6. Further, the Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication of dependency, stating that "the trial court erroneously based its adjudication of dependency on conditions existing at the time the petition was filed instead of the time of the adjudication." Id. at *7. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated the disposition and permanency planning order and remanded the case to the trial court. Id.
¶ 11 On September 8, 2020, DSS filed a petition for discretionary review under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31(c). On September 28, 2020, respondent-mother filed a conditional petition for discretionary review in response. This court allowed both petitions on December 14, 2021, and the matter was heard on May 23, 2022.
¶ 12 First, we address the argument by DSS that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court improperly admitted and considered witness reports of abuse contained in Lea's medical records.
¶ 13 "In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context." N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2021); see also, In re E.D. , 372 N.C. 111, 116, 827 S.E.2d 450, 454 (2019). As this Court has stated, "a respondent's failure to object to the trial court's taking judicial notice of underlying juvenile case files waives appellate review of the issue." In re A.C. , 378 N.C. 377, 2021-NCSC-91, ¶ 17, 861 S.E.2d 858 (cleaned up).
¶ 14 Here, the trial court took judicial notice of the medical records previously admitted without objection at a May 10, 2019 hearing on nonsecure custody in which respondent-mother was represented by counsel. When counsel for DSS offered the medical records for admission there, the following exchange occurred:
¶ 15 The medical records included reports that Lea had been brought to the hospital by her neighbors after the neighbors witnessed respondent-mother burn Lea's feet with a cigarette lighter, punch Lea in the abdomen, and spray Lea in the face with Windex. Elliot also provided testimony regarding the reports that respondent-mother burned Lea's feet and left her on the porch. As this Court stated in In re A.C. , the failure to object to the trial court taking judicial notice of such records waives appellate review of the issue. Id. Thus, respondent-mother's failure to object waives appellate review.
¶ 16 DSS next argues that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that respondent-mother received ineffective assistance when counsel did not object to admission of the medical records.
¶ 17 A party alleging ineffective assistance of counsel "must show that counsel's performance was deficient and the deficiency was so serious as to deprive [the party] of a fair hearing." In re B.B. , 381 N.C. 343, 2022-NCSC-67, ¶ 39, 873 S.E.2d 589 (quoting In re G.G.M. , 377 N.C. 29, 2021-NCSC-25, ¶ 35, 855 S.E.2d 478 ). In order to show deprivation of a fair hearing, the party "must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, there would have been a different result in the proceedings." Id. (emphasis omitted). "[I]f a reviewing court can determine at the outset that there is no reasonable probability that in the absence of counsel's alleged errors the result of the proceeding would have been different, then the court need not determine whether counsel's performance was actually deficient." State v. Braswell , 312 N.C. 553, 563, 324 S.E.2d 241, 249 (1985).
¶ 18 There is "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the range of reasonable professional assistance." State v. Roache , 358 N.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial