In re A.D.H., ___ N.C. ___ (December 12, 2025)
Held:
Reversed and Remanded
- Facts and procedural history: This action involves simultaneous proceedings of a civil custody dispute between Mother and Father and a juvenile action alleging the child at issue abused, neglected, and dependent. A report was made to Carteret County DSS based on statements the child made to classmates and her school counselor that Father sexually abused her. Carteret DSS referred the case to Craven County due to a conflict of interest given that Mother’s aunt was a former Carteret DSS employee and had continued relationships with social workers at DSS. Craven DSS found the allegations unsubstantiated after a trauma screening and Child Medical Evaluation (CME). A second report was made based on the same allegations and resulted in identical findings by Craven DSS. In the custody case, the trial court ultimately found that Father did not sexually abuse the child. The court entered a permanent child custody order (CCO) granting Father primary legal and physical custody because of concerns Mother was coaching the child. The order also included a provision that no one but the child’s current therapist could discuss past sexual abuse allegations with the child. Craven DSS filed an interference petition after a third report was made by the child’s school counselor to Carteret DSS, Carteret DSS interviewed the child and recommended another CME, and Father refused to subject the child to another CME, citing to the provisions of the CCO. The trial court dismissed the interference petition (IPO) with prejudice after finding that (1) counsel for DSS stated the investigation could be completed without the CME and (2) reiterating facts in the CCO. A fourth report was made where Carteret DSS again attempted to conduct an investigation and Father refused. The trial court then entered a temporary emergency custody order awarding Father emergency temporary custody of the child and restraining Mother from removing the child from Father’s custody. Carteret DSS subsequently questioned the child at school and ultimately filed a juvenile petition based on statements the child made both before and after entry of the CCO and IPO. Before filing the petition, Carteret DSS attempted to refer the matter to Craven DSS due to the apparent conflict of interest but Craven DSS refused due to lack of substantiated evidence. The trial court ultimately dismissed the juvenile petition with prejudice based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. DSS appealed. The court of appeals vacated and remanded the case after reviewing the differing evidentiary standards of the CCO, IPO and juvenile petitions, holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied but that the more recent allegations made after entry of the CCO and IPO could not be estopped. Carteret DSS filed a petition for discretionary review of whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to the CCO and IPO.
- “Whether a court is barred from hearing a specific issue under the doctrine of collateral estoppel is a question of law.” Sl. Op. at 8. Questions of law are reviewed de novo.
- The doctrine of collateral estoppel “precludes relitigation of a fact, question, or right in issue.” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted). Appellate precedent has established the requirements for defensive-use collateral estoppel to include:“(1) a valid final judgment on the merits in a previous suit; (2) the later suit involves identical issues; (3) the issue was actually litigated in the prior suit and necessary to the judgment; (4) the issue was actually determined; and (5) the party to be collaterally estopped was a party or in privity with a party to the prior suit, who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action.” Sl. Op. at 12-13. Privity is a due process protection that has been generally defined by the NC Supreme Court as “a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted).
- The court of appeals erred in holding that Carteret DSS was a party or in privity with a party to the CCO and collaterally estopped from adjudicating the allegations in the juvenile petition based on the CCO. Mother and Father were the only parties to the child custody action. Neither county DSS intervened in the custody action. Although a DSS social worker was a witness and testified, that participation did not make DSS a party to the custody action. Further, Mother and Father’s interests and legal rights are distinct from and do not represent the interests of DSS which are statutorily prescribed to include investigating claims of sexual abuse, assessing the child’s circumstances, and removing the child from the home or providing protective services to the child.
- The court of appeals erred in concluding factual issues alleged in the juvenile petition were actually litigated and determined in the IPO such that Carteret DSS was collaterally estopped from adjudicating the allegations in the petition. Findings in the IPO were recitations of arguments made by Father’s counsel regarding whether abuse had occurred. The trial court failed to make “actually determined” findings of fact on the issue that would preclude the court from adjudicating the juvenile petition. Sl. Op. at 15
- The court observed the substantial conflict of interest Carteret DSS possesses in the case, deeming its continued participation in the matter “wholly inappropriate.” Sl. Op. at 6 n.2, 16. Findings include that Mother’s aunt previously worked at Carteret DSS with the social worker assigned to the case; Mother’s aunt was friends with the social worker on social media; and the social worker and other Carteret DSS employees were tagged in social media fundraising posts made by Mother’s aunt aimed at raising funds to pay for Mother’s legal fees related to the child custody action.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Adjudicatory HearingTopic: