In re A.J., ___ N.C. App. ___ (September 16, 2026)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts and procedural history: Mother appeals an order adjudicating her three children as neglected and two of the children as dependent following remand from the supreme court, 289 N.C. 409 (2024), summarized here. The initial adjudication was based on three reported incidents between Mother and one of the older children: one where Mother broke a car window to unlock the car when the child locked herself in and hitting the child with a belt; one where Mother choked the child and threw her out of the car; and one where Mother locked the child out of the house following an argument where the child sought safety at a neighbor’s and the police were called. Social worker testimony described concerns for Mother’s behavior surrounding the incidents and during attempted contacts to work out a case plan where Mother was angry, cursed at them, and was resentful of family who communicated with DSS. The court of appeals, and upon discretionary review, the supreme court, disregarded some of the trial court’s findings that were based on inadmissible hearsay consisting of statements made by the child to social workers, many relating to the second incident, and held the unsupported findings were insufficient to conclude the children neglected and the two older children dependent. The supreme court vacated and remanded the order to the trial court to enter a new order on the existing record or conduct further necessary proceedings in its discretion. On remand to the trial court, Mother moved for a new hearing based on the supreme court’s opinion and alleging the trial judge had previously recused himself and could not rule on the current matter. The trial court denied the motions and entered a new order with new findings and conclusions based on the prior adjudication hearing. On appeal from the new adjudication order, Mother argues that the trial judge recused himself from the case and therefore the new order must be vacated, and in the alternative, the findings are not supported by the evidence such that the adjudication of neglect is unsupported.
- Appellate courts review challenges to the validity of an order after an alleged recusal de novo. A trial judge is barred from entering any subsequent orders in a matter once a recusal order has been entered. An order, including a recusal order, must be written, signed, and filed to be effective. Here, there is no recusal order in the record. The record only reflects Mother’s motion at the hearing on remand alleging the trial judge recused himself following threats by Mother. Consequently, the judge did not recuse himself, and the new adjudication order is valid.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Adjudicatory HearingTopic: