In re A.H., 289 N.C. App. 501 (2023), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, remanded, ___ N.C. ___ (March 22, 2024) (per curiam)
Held:
Reversed
There is a dissent
by Flood, J.
- Affirmed, ___ N.C. ___ (March 22, 2024) (per curiam) in a 3-3 decision giving no precedential value to the court of appeals decision.
- Facts: A 9-year-old child was adjudicated neglected and dependent based on incidents occurring after being picked up by her Father from the bus stop after school. Upon engaging in a disagreement with her Father, where father said she was going to get a whooping, the child exited the truck before reaching their destination. The Father followed the child in his truck, but because of the neighborhood and hauling a trailer, could not keep up and instead pursued the child on foot until he had to turn back and return to the two other minor step-siblings remaining in the truck. Another driver saw the child run across a road, nearly being struck by a large truck, while also observing Father turning back and walking away. The driver followed the child who was visibly upset and claimed to be afraid of her Father, called the police. Following a DSS investigation spanning a couple of hours the same afternoon, DSS filed a petition alleging dependency and neglect the following morning. Father did not contact DSS between the time of the investigation and before the filing of the petition, though Father testified he later saw the child and determined she was safe upon observing her with a crowd. Within an hour of dropping the other two minors with a relative, father contacted his wife who informed him that the child was in DSS custody. Father appeals from adjudication and the subsequent disposition order placing the child with DSS, contending that the findings are unsupported by the evidence and/or inadequate to support the adjudication.
- An adjudication of dependency requires the trial court to ‘ “ address both (1) the parent’s ability to provide care or supervision, and (2) the availability to the parent of alternative child care arrangements.” ‘ Sl. Op. at 13. (citation omitted).
- DSS failed to introduce evidence that the Father did not have alternative child care arrangements available. Findings as to both prongs are required. Sl. Op. at 13.
- Father not contacting DSS or providing DSS with alternative arrangements within the 24 hours, and Father’s wife not offering to take the juvenile into her custody or sharing the Father’s contact information with DSS, does not meet DSS’s evidentiary burden of showing no such arrangements exist.
- Dissent: The trial court fulfilled its duty to “address the parent’s ability to provide care and alternative childcare arrangements.” Dissent at 21. Father left the scene, did not return or contact DSS, and left town; Father’s wife was not willing to assist in finding care or offering Father’s contact information. DSS could not have attempted to work a plan with Father under these circumstances or gain assistance from Father’s wife. Findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence to support the child’s adjudication as dependent.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Dependency