In re V.M.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA19-1028,COA19-1028 |
| Citation | 848 S.E.2d 530 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: V.M. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Cumberland County Department of Social Services, by Michael A. Simmons, for petitioner.
Benjamin J. Kull, Raleigh, for respondent-mother.
Alston & Bird LLP, Raleigh, by Ryan P. Ethridge, for the Guardian ad Litem.
Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court's order adjudicating V.M. ("Vinny")1 neglected under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) and ordering respondent-mother and respondent-father (collectively, "respondent-parents") to submit to random drug screens. After careful review, we reverse and remand.
This action arises out of a Cumberland County Department of Social Services ("DSS") report concerning Vinny, who was admitted to the hospital with a blood alcohol level of 179 and diagnosed with acute alcohol intoxication. Respondent-parents are the biological parents of Vinny, who was four months old at the time of the incident at issue. The events leading up to the incident are as follows.
Respondent-mother is a stay-at-home mom and the primary caretaker of Vinny. In January 2019, respondent-mother took Vinny with her to Atlanta, Georgia for an aunt's funeral. Respondent-father was unable to accompany them on the trip due to a work conflict. Following the funeral service on Friday, 25 January 2019, respondent-mother and other family members gathered at a cousin's house, which had a full bar. While there, some members of the family began drinking. Respondent-mother and her brother, Domico, did not participate in the drinking, but were present in the home while the drinking took place. At some point, some of the family members who were drinking, including respondent-mother's sister Selenia, transferred the liquor into water bottles. Respondent-mother, Vinny, and Domico later spent the night at an Airbnb with Selenia.
The next morning, the group returned to their cousin's home to pick up their grandmother, who was going to ride back to North Carolina with Domico, respondent-mother, and Vinny. Before leaving, Domico grabbed some water bottles that he believed were unopened from the kitchen counter of their cousin's home. During the car ride back to North Carolina, respondent-mother fed Vinny formula that she prepared using one of the water bottles. Domico testified that throughout this process he did not detect the smell of alcohol in the car. Vinny subsequently became fussy. Despite respondent-mother's attempts to console him, Vinny remained fussy even after they arrived home. Throughout all relevant times, Vinny was primarily in the care of respondent-mother.
Respondent-mother took Vinny to the hospital the next morning, where doctors determined he had alcohol in his system and diagnosed him with acute alcohol intoxication. After speaking with his sister about the situation, Domico smelled the water bottle respondent-mother had used to prepare Vinny's formula and detected an odor of alcohol. Domico then realized he must have mistakenly grabbed one of the water bottles containing liquor from their cousin's house, which respondent-mother later used to prepare Vinny's formula. The matter was referred to DSS, and Vinny was temporarily placed in the care of his paternal grandparents on 29 January 2019. Respondent-parents cooperated with DSS and worked to satisfy the agency's requirements.
On 18 February 2019, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging that Vinny was neglected, dependent, and abused. DSS also made an ex parte request for non-secure custody of Vinny. The trial court denied this request, with the requirement that Vinny remain placed in the care of his paternal grandparents. On 22 May 2019, the trial court adjudicated Vinny to be a neglected juvenile but dismissed the allegations of abuse and dependency. The trial court also ordered that Vinny be returned to the care of respondent-parents and required respondent-parents to submit to two random drug screens. On 12 June 2019, the trial court held a full dispositional hearing. The trial court found that there were no safety concerns with respondent-parents, and on 6 August 2019, ordered that Vinny remain in the home of respondent-parents. The trial court further ordered that respondent-parents submit to additional random drug screens, following their admission that if tested that day they would test positive for marijuana.
Respondent-mother timely filed notice of appeal on 5 September 2019.
"The role of this Court in reviewing a trial court's adjudication of neglect ... is to determine ‘(1) whether the findings of fact are supported by "clear and convincing evidence," and (2) whether the legal conclusions are supported by the findings of fact[.]’ " In re T.H.T. , 185 N.C. App. 337, 343, 648 S.E.2d 519, 523 (2007) (quoting In re Gleisner , 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000) ), aff'd as modified , 362 N.C. 446, 665 S.E.2d 54 (2008). "If such evidence exists, the findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the evidence would support a finding to the contrary." Id. "We review a trial court's conclusions of law de novo. " In re J.R. , 243 N.C. App. 309, 312, 778 S.E.2d 441, 443 (2015).
In her first assignment of error, respondent-mother contends that the trial court erred in adjudicating Vinny a neglected juvenile. We agree.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2019), a neglected juvenile is:
Any juvenile less than 18 years of age ... whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; 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 ....
"In general, treatment of a child which falls below the normative standards imposed upon parents by our society is considered neglectful." In re Thompson , 64 N.C. App. 95, 99, 306 S.E.2d 792, 794 (1983). However, not every act of negligence on part of the parent results in a neglected juvenile. In re Stumbo , 357 N.C. 279, 283, 582 S.E.2d 255, 258 (2003). "In order to adjudicate a juvenile neglected, our courts have additionally ‘required 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." ’ " Id. (quoting In re Safriet , 112 N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-902 (1993) ). Generally, North Carolina courts have found neglect where "the conduct at issue constituted either severe or dangerous conduct or a pattern of conduct either causing injury or potentially causing injury to the juvenile." Id.
In the trial court's order, it states, "the Court, after reviewing the evidence, record, testimony and arguments presented, makes the following findings by clear, cogent and convincing evidence" and lists facts numbered one through twenty. Of those twenty findings of fact numbers 16 and 18 are at issue. The trial court's finding of fact 16 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Respondent-mother concedes the majority of the substance of this finding. Respondent-mother concedes that Vinny was primarily in her care; that alcohol was placed into the bottles on Friday, 25 January 2019; that respondent-mother, her brother, and their grandmother traveled from Georgia to North Carolina; and that Domico, after Vinny was admitted to the hospital, discovered the smell of alcohol in one of the bottles. Respondent-mother does take issue with particular details of these findings – that it was not "the parties" but respondent-mother's brother and sister who testified; that the evidence only supported a determination that alcohol was placed in bottles on Friday, 25 January 2019, and not any other day; that the evidence did not support a determination that respondent-mother returned to North Carolina with anyone other than Vinny, Domico, and her grandmother – but she does not challenge the fundamental determinations raised therein.
We likewise hold that there was evidence to support the thrust of each of these findings in turn. They are, ultimately, a factual recitation of the events of that day. The issue is not with finding of fact 16, but with the conclusion of law derived therefrom.
Respondent-mother contends that finding of fact 18 is actually a conclusion of law. We agree.
As a general rule, "[t]he labels ‘findings of fact’ and ‘conclusions of law’ employed by the lower tribunal in a written order do not determine the nature of our standard of review." In re Estate of Sharpe , 258 N.C. App. 601, 605, 814 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2018). Thus, "[i]f the lower tribunal labels as a finding of fact what is in substance a conclusion of law, we review that ‘finding’ as a conclusion de novo. " Id.
The trial court's finding of fact 18 states, in pertinent part, that:
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Court finds that the juvenile [Vinny] was a neglected juvenile, within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re B.R.W.
...conduct inconsistent with one's parental rights were conclusions of law subject to de novo review. Id. ¶ 34 (citing In re V.M. , 273 N.C. App. 294, 298, 848 S.E.2d 530 (2020) ; Raynor v. Odom , 124 N.C. App. 724, 731, 478 S.E.2d 655 (1996) ; Boseman v. Jarrell , 364 N.C. 537, 549, 704 S.E.2......
-
In re B.R.W.
...a finding of fact what is in substance a conclusion of law, we review that ‘finding’ as a conclusion de novo. " In re V.M. , 273 N.C. App. 294, 298, 848 S.E.2d 530, 534 (2020) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). ¶ 34 Prior cases have often not been clear on whether the determinati......
-
In re A.H.
...in his care was so negligent as to be legal neglect, and no such evidence appears of record. See In re V.M., 11 273 N.C.App. 294, 300, 848 S.E.2d 530, 535 (2020) (holding a trial court's findings regarding neglect were inadequate when they only "support a determination that a tragic and unf......
- Isom v. Duncan