In re W.C.T.

Decision Date19 October 2021
Docket NumberNo. COA21-178,COA21-178
Parties In the MATTER OF: W.C.T., W.J.A.T., & W.D.T.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Wendy Walker, for Petitioner-Appellee Alamance County Department of Social Services.

Office of the Parent Defender, by Parent Defender Wendy C. Sotolongo and Assistant Parent Defender J. Lee Gilliam, for Respondent-Appellant-Mother.

Edward Eldred, for Respondent-Appellant-Father.

Forrest Firm, P.C., by Brian C. Bernhardt, Charlotte, for Guardian ad Litem.

CARPENTER, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father (collectively "Respondents") appeal from the trial court's Adjudication and Disposition Order adjudicating minor child, Wade,1 as an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile; adjudicating the other two minor children, Wes and Wren, as neglected and dependent juveniles; and vesting custody of the children with Alamance County Department of Social Services ("ACDSS"). Respondents argue the trial court erred in adjudicating Wade abused and dependent, and adjudicating Wes and Wren dependent. Respondent-Mother also argues the trial court abused its discretion by limiting her visitation with the children to highly supervised, one-hour weekly visits; requiring proof of income; and ordering her to "refrain from allowing mental health to impact parenting." Finally, Respondent-Mother contends the trial court erred in concluding she acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected status as a parent. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Adjudication and Disposition Order.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

¶ 2 Respondent-Mother and Respondent-Father are the biological parents of three children: "Wes," eight years old; "Wren," three years old; and "Wade," one year old. Respondent-Mother is legally married to her estranged husband, Peter,2 and was married to, but separated from, Peter prior to the births of the three children. Peter is not a party to this appeal.

¶ 3 On 12 March 2020, Wade, then three months old, was taken to Moses Cone Hospital for second and third degree burns on 8.3% of his left thigh, left calf, and left foot. Immediately after arriving to Moses Cone Hospital, Wade was transferred to Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center/Brenner Children's Hospital ("BCH") for treatment by its burn team. The injury was not witnessed, and the parties have offered multiple, inconsistent, and implausible stories to explain the circumstances surrounding the child's injury.

¶ 4 Respondents reported to Moses Cone Hospital staff that Wade was in a baby swing or rocker downstairs when their German Shepherd dog knocked over the swing. Respondents alleged that Wade fell out of the swing and was pushed up against an electrical space heater for what they estimated was approximately thirty minutes; they reported finding him laying against the heater. Respondents claimed to have immediately transported Wade to the hospital after discovering his injuries. Respondents also told this story to both BCH staff and a Forsyth County Department of Social Services ("FCDSS") social worker who interviewed them on 13 March 2020. During the interview with the social worker, Respondent-Mother admitted Wade was not yet able to roll over at the time of injury.

¶ 5 BCH triage notes indicate the "burn distribution is consistent w[ith the] story" Respondents told. The notes also document concerns regarding: the child being left unattended by a heater, the thirty- to forty-minute period for which Respondents could not account, how a dog knocked over the swing, why the space heater was left on during a hot day, and why the parents did not immediately hear the child's cries. The initial screening for domestic violence, abuse, and neglect did not raise concerns; however, child abuse protocol was initiated by BCH on 13 March 2020 at 2:30 a.m. after BCH received an anonymous phone call from someone who claimed to be familiar with Respondent's family and sought the case be reported to Child Protective Services ("CPS"). The caller claimed to have recordings of the paternal grandmother threatening Wade the day of his injury. The caller also stated that the paternal grandmother often leaves the children unattended and claimed Respondent-Mother was at risk for abuse. The attending physician referred Wade for a consultation with Dr. Meggan Goodpasture of the BCH Pediatric Child Protection team. Dr. Goodpasture met with the maternal grandmother and Respondent-Father. Although the maternal grandmother expressed safety concerns in her meeting with Dr. Goodpasture, the family had no subsequent meetings with the doctor because Respondent-Father advised BCH that he did not want Dr. Goodpasture in Wade's hospital room again. Based on Dr. Goodpasture's initial consultation, she recommended, inter alia , CPS and law enforcement reconstruct the scene of the injury and perform full child medical evaluations on each of the three children.

¶ 6 Guilford County Department of Social Services ("GCDSS") received a report for physical abuse concerning Wade on 13 March 2020. Later that day, GCDSS sent a request to FCDSS to assist in the investigation. Social Worker Pope of FCDSS interviewed nurse staff of BCH as well as the Respondents. After Social Worker Pope left Wade's hospital room, Respondent-Father stated to the attending nurse, Nurse Green, that the social worker told him the burn was caused by boiling water. He then became "visibly upset" and stated, "I feel like I'm being accused of a crime that I did not commit." Respondent-Father indicated an unidentified staff member in scrubs had also commented the burn was "from boiling water." Nurse Green was able to "diffuse the situation" by indicating physicians did not have suspicions of Respondents’ story, Respondent-Father became more at ease and mentioned he has post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") from being "burned and abused" by his own father, which caused him to distrust "the system." Neither the emergency department notes, nor the social workers’ reports state the burn was caused by boiling water.

¶ 7 On 27 March 2020, Dr. John Bailey of the BCH burn team entered a progress note regarding Wade's case. He documented he and Dr. Goodpasture agreed Wade "appear[ed] to have suffered a contact burn." He also noted that neither of the doctors could "offer more than a speculation regarding the true mechanism [of the injury], although involvement of the pet seems less likely."

¶ 8 On 1 April 2020, a Child and Family Team meeting was held between GCDSS, Respondent-Mother, and Respondent-Father. At the meeting, Respondents agreed to enter a safety agreement whereby the children would be placed with the maternal grandparents as a temporary safety provider, Respondents would not have unsupervised visits or overnight stays with the children, and Respondents would receive mental health services. Wade was discharged from BCH into the maternal grandparents’ care the following day.

¶ 9 On 2 April 2020, another Child and Family Team meeting was held via conference call with Respondents, GCDSS, and the paternal grandmother, and Krispen Culberton ("Attorney Culberton")—attorney for Respondents’ family. Attorney Culberton reported Respondents’ concerns for Wren's behavior and her aggression towards Wade. According to Attorney Culberton, Respondents were afraid to report they believed Wren caused Wade's injuries. The paternal grandmother claimed at the meeting she was the sole caretaker of the juveniles when Wade was injured. According to the paternal grandmother's version of events, she fed Wade and laid him in his bassinet, she put Wren down in her playpen, and she went downstairs to prepare dinner. She later sent Wes upstairs to check on Wren and Wade. Immediately after, Wes came running downstairs screaming Wade had been burned. The paternal grandmother speculated that Wren climbed out of her playpen, pulled Wade out of his bassinet, and climbed back into her playpen. Following the injury, the paternal grandmother treated Wade's burns with Vaseline before taking him to the hospital. Respondents adopted this story and later reported this account of events to Detective Gerald Austin ("Detective Austin") of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department, who handled the criminal investigation into Wade's injury.

¶ 10 On 16 April 2020, a child medical evaluation was performed on each of the three children by Dr. Esther Smith of the Cone Health Child Advocacy Medical Clinic, as recommended by Dr. Goodpasture. In Dr. Smith's opinion, "it is possible that [Wade's] injuries are consistent with having been burned by prolonged direct or near-direct contact with [Respondents’] space heater"; however, she noted "there is a very high concern for [an i]ntentional[ly i]nflicted injury (at worst) ... and/or [n]eglect resulting in [an u]nintentional [i]njury (at best)." She expressed concerns for the red flags identified by BCH as well as concerns for the "very unsafe infant sleep environment" which included lack of supervision, close proximity to a heat source, suffocation risk due to excess blankets in bassinet, and potential fall risk due to a cradle that may have been improperly assembled.

¶ 11 In May of 2020, the case was transferred from GCDSS to ACDSS due to a potential conflict of interest that arose after Respondent-Father and his attorney threatened to sue GCDSS and/or its employees over an alleged HIPAA violation.

¶ 12 On 21 July 2020, concerns arose regarding the kinship placement with the maternal grandparents when ACDSS social workers arrived at the maternal grandparents’ home unannounced and found the maternal grandmother overwhelmed with caring for the children. The maternal grandmother admitted that she was frustrated by Respondents’ tardiness to scheduled visitations. She also admitted to "backhand[ing]" Wren after Wren spit in her face. ACDSS immediately terminated the kinship placement and advised Respondents that a replacement temporary safety provider was needed.

¶ 13 On 21 July 2020, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Kiser
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 19 Octubre 2021
  • In re G.C.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 5 Julio 2022
    ...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, 867 S.E.2d 14 (citations omitted). ¶ 10 As an initial matter, as part of his broader challenge to the trial cou......
  • In re A.H.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 5 Julio 2023

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT