In re R.B.

• Decision Date: 07 December 2021
• Docket Number: COA21-285
• Citation: 868 S.E.2d 119
• Parties: In the MATTER OF R.B.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

868 S.E.2d 119

In the MATTER OF R.B.

No. COA21-285

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 7, 2021

Lisa Anne Wagner, for Respondent-Appellant-Mother.

Stam Law Firm, PLLC, Apex, by R. Daniel Gibson, for Guardian ad Litem.

No brief filed on behalf of Rockingham County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Appellee.

WOOD, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-Mother appeals an order adjudicating her minor child, Riley,¹ neglected and dependent and continuing non-secure custody with Rockingham County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). On appeal, Respondent-Mother contends the trial court erred in adjudicating Riley neglected and dependent and abused its discretion in continuing non-secure custody with DSS. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the adjudication order.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Respondent-Mother has one child, Riley, born on August 15, 2017. Respondent-Mother has a history of depression and anxiety. In December 2019, Respondent-Mother was having difficulty getting Riley to sleep independently and called several friends and a parenting hotline for support. Respondent-Mother felt overwhelmed and exhausted and believed it would be best for another adult to be in the home until she rested. Ultimately, Respondent-Mother called 9-1-1 due to her exhaustion.² Law enforcement arrived to Respondent-Mother's residence, and "didn't see a problem in the home."

¶ 3 Thereafter, one of Respondent-Mother's friends picked Riley up and kept him for a few days. During this time, Respondent-Mother voluntarily underwent a mental health evaluation and began therapy. Another friend of Respondent-Mother's traveled from Baltimore to stay with Respondent-Mother "in the event that it was determined" Respondent-Mother needed supervision. Shortly thereafter, Riley returned to Respondent-Mother's care.

¶ 4 Also in December 2019, Respondent-Mother befriended Ms. D. Ms. D and her four-year-old daughter resided with Respondent-Mother for approximately one month during the Covid-19 pandemic. After Ms. D moved out of Respondent-Mother's residence, Respondent-Mother had additional difficulty getting Riley to sleep independently. Respondent-Mother attempted to arrange respite care for Riley but these arrangements fell through for various reasons.

¶ 5 On June 7, 2020, Respondent-Mother was suffering from exhaustion and depression.³ Respondent-Mother texted Ms. D, "I have two black eyes⁴ from him kicking me in the head. He has been screaming and banging on the door all night and I have not slept in 22 hours and I swear to God I think I'm going to kill him." Respondent-Mother further texted that she "want[ed] to strangle the [expletive omitted] lights out of him"; she "[expletive omitted] hate[d] his guts [she] hated the [expletive omitted] guts and [she] hope[d] he [expletive omitted] chokes a [expletive omitted] hate every never lets me sleep"; she "hate[d] being a mom it's the worst"; and Riley "could fend for himseld [sic] and [she] wil sray [sic] in [her] room." Respondent-Mother expressed her frustration to Ms. D and her feeling that no one understood the difficulty she was experiencing.

Specifically, Respondent-Mother sent a text message to Ms. D stating, "Everyone keeps just telling me that it's normal and I'm [sic] keep telling everybody that I literally had my hands around his throat because I can't [expletive omitted] take it anymore but nobody wants to hear it."⁵

¶ 6 Ms. D testified that she "didn't take [Respondent-Mother's messages] literally,"⁶ and did not believe Respondent-Mother would harm Riley or herself at the time she received the text messages. Respondent-Mother testified these messages were "hyperbole and blowing off steam." After Respondent-Mother sent Ms. D these messages, Riley went to stay with Ms. D for approximately one week. Respondent-Mother periodically messaged Ms. D throughout the week to inquire about Riley's well-being and picked Riley up on June 14, 2020. Ms. D later testified that she had some reservations about returning Riley to Respondent-Mother's care, "not because [Ms. D] didn't think that she could do it. [Ms. D] just didn't think she could do it at that time" due to her mental state. Nonetheless, she ultimately returned Riley to the care of Respondent-Mother, because "she's the mother. And ultimately, [Ms. D is] just another human being. It's not for [her] to say. [She] can only have an opinion and that doesn't make [her] the person who can make the decision."

¶ 7 Shortly after Riley returned to Respondent-Mother's care, Respondent-Mother and Ms. D got into an argument unrelated to Riley's care. Around this same time, Ms. D was contacted by DSS, and she provided DSS with screenshots of Respondent-Mother's text messages from June 7, 2020.

¶ 8 On June 17, 2020, social workers visited Respondent-Mother's home. Respondent-Mother did not allow the social worker into her home, but allowed Ms. N, a community behavioral health counselor, into the residence. Ms. N spent approximately thirty minutes in Respondent-Mother's residence talking to her before determining Respondent-Mother did not need to be involuntarily committed.

¶ 9 After Ms. N exited the residence, she, the social worker, and law enforcement remained in Respondent-Mother's driveway discussing the visit. Ms. N, the social worker, and law enforcement sat in their vehicles for approximately two and a half hours before the social worker took non-secure custody of Riley. Riley was temporarily placed in foster care before returning to Respondent-Mother's residence with Respondent-Mother under the supervision of his maternal grandmother.

¶ 10 After Riley was temporarily removed from Respondent-Mother's care, she contacted her therapist and voluntarily underwent a psychological evaluation. Her therapist recommended she continue therapy and comply with all of DSS's recommendations. In response to her therapist's recommendations, Respondent-Mother continued therapy throughout the adjudication.

¶ 11 On June 17, 2020, more than a week after Respondent-Mother sent Ms. D the text messages, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging Riley was a neglected and dependent juvenile. The adjudication hearing occurred over three days: October 12, 2020, November 5, 2020, and December 3, 2020. On November 5, 2020, Respondent-Mother moved to dismiss the juvenile petition, but the court denied her motion. Riley's appointed Guardian ad litem submitted a report recommending Riley be returned to Respondent-Mother's care. Specifically, the Guardian ad litem reported

In my short time as a GAL, I have not encountered another parent like [Respondent-Mother]. She uses appropriate language with her son, has displayed age-appropriate discipline, and overall, appears to be a very good mother. She repeats regularly that she wants what is best for her son, always. I think that extenuating circumstances of excessive isolation during the pandemic must be taken into consideration in this case.

In every call I have with the family, [Respondent-Mother's] behavior with her son is exemplary. This was also true during what had to be a very stressful time from the audio recording I listened to that was recorded by [Respondent-Mother] on the day that DSS removed [Riley] from the home. [Respondent-Mother] remained a present and engaged parent even as her mental health was in question by the DSS staff member, [Ms. N]. [Respondent-Mother] has stated time and time again that [Riley] comes first. When she feels like depression might overtake her, she seeks care of [Riley.] ...

...

[Respondent-Mother] appears to be directly dealing with her known and acknowledged mental health issues and HAS dealt with those issues without harm to her child and of her own volition, without outside intervention, [f]rom her history and from her dogged determination to clear her name in this case, she appears to have a firm grasp on what being a parent means. In every single interaction I have had with the family, the mother is directly engaged with her son, pays attention to his requests, disciplines appropriately when necessary, and interacts positively with him no matter what is going on.

Included in the record on appeal are several letters drafted by Respondent-Mother's friends advocating for Riley's return to Respondent-Mother's care. These letters were drafted in June 2020 and include the following language: "The way [Respondent-Mother] is with [Riley] is beautiful and heartwarming.... She would bend over backwards if there was any possible threat to [Riley]"; Riley "is [Respondent-Mother's] world. I know firsthand that [Respondent-Mother] is a BRILLIANT mother"; "I could never imagine [Respondent-Mother's] love and ability to care for [Riley] would ever be argued"; and "[Respondent-Mother] is a remarkable mother: doting affectionate, and emotionally intuitive to her son's needs."

¶ 12 The trial court orally adjudicated Riley a neglected and dependent juvenile and proceeded to disposition on December 3, 2020. On February 1, 2021, the trial court entered its written adjudication and disposition order, in which it adjudicated Riley a neglected and dependent juvenile and found "the juvenile's return to his/her own home would be contrary to the juvenile's best interests." The trial court continued non-secure custody with DSS, but placed Riley "in the home of his mother, ... under constant supervision of the maternal grandmother." Respondent-Mother timely filed a written notice of appeal on February 11, 2021.

II. Discussion

¶ 13 Respondent-Mother appeals from the adjudication and disposition order.

In North Carolina, juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency actions are governed by Chapter 7B of the General Statutes, commonly known as the Juvenile Code. Such cases are typically initiated when the local department of social services (DSS) receives a report indicating a child may be in need of protective services. DSS conducts an investigation, and if the allegations in the report are

...