In re A.J.L.H., 384 N.C. 45 (2023)
Held:
Reversed and Remanded
There is a dissent
in part, concur in part by Earls, J. joined by Morgan, J.
- Facts: This action involves three children, where the appellant is the stepfather to the two older children and the biological father of the youngest child. The children share the same mother. DSS filed a petition based on the repeated use of corporal punishment with a belt that caused bruising and marks on the oldest child, who was 9 years old, as well as a requirement to stand in the corner for hours at a time and to sleep on the floor. The parents did not believe their disciplinary methods were cruel or unusual. The petition alleged the oldest child was abused and neglected and the younger siblings were neglected. After the hearing, the children were adjudicated and the parents were denied visitation. The parents appealed, challenging the adjudications and denial of visitation. The court of appeals vacated and remanded the adjudications of neglect for one juvenile based on the trial court’s reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence and reversed and ordered the trial court to dismiss the adjudications of the siblings because it was based solely on the adjudication of the older juvenile. The supreme court granted a petition for discretionary review.
- Hearsay evidence involved the oldest child’s statements made to others. The ruling on an evidentiary issue by the trial court “will be presumed to be correct unless the complaining party can demonstrate that the particular ruling was in fact incorrect.” Sl.Op. at 9 (citation omitted).
- A hearsay exception includes statements made to show the action taken by the person to whom the statement was made. The child’s statements met this exception to show why DSS became involved and were not admitted to prove the truth of the statement about the abuse. The court of appeals should not have assumed the ruling was erroneous.
- A reviewing court determines whether the conclusions are supported by the findings and whether the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. The reviewing court disregards information in a finding that is not supported by the evidence and examines the remaining findings that are supported by clear and convincing evidence to determine whether those findings support the court’s conclusions. A “reviewing court should not speculate about how ‘heavily’ the trial court might have relied on one finding as opposed to another.” Sl. Op. at 10.
- The abuse adjudication is supported by findings of marks on the juvenile’s back caused by a belt, a bruise on the child’s neck area and were confirmed by the respondent’s admissions of the frequent (vs. sparing) use of physical discipline, having the child stand in a corner for hours and sleep on the floor. Based on the frequency, this is cruel or grossly inappropriate procedures or devices to modify behavior. It is also an injurious environment supporting the neglect adjudication.
- An adjudication of neglect cannot be based solely on the adjudication of other juveniles. Here, the younger siblings were neglected based on a risk of harm because the respondents were not willing to commit to stopping their use of discipline of the older juvenile or acknowledge that it was abuse. The court’s assessment of a substantial risk of harm is predictive in nature based on the historical facts of the case and does not require the court to wait for actual harm to occur to the child.
- Dissent in part: The court of appeals was correct in determination that the adjudication of the siblings as neglected was based solely on the adjudication of the older sibling. There was no other factors that showed a risk based on current circumstances to the juvenile.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Abuse