In re G.C., 384 N.C. 62 (2023)
Held:
Reversed
There is a dissent
Earls, J. joined by Morgan, J.
- Facts: The juvenile was adjudicated neglected due to living in an injurious environment and not receiving proper care and supervision. Mother had a previous DSS case with her two older children who had been adjudicated abused, neglected, and dependent and had been in DSS custody since 2017. In 2019, mother was convicted of misdemeanor child abuse related to these 2 older children. Two other juveniles were born. In 2020, mother placed the youngest juvenile in a pack and play with blankets and bottles and found him unresponsive. He died and the autopsy report could not rule out death by asphyxiation. DSS filed a petition for the older sibling to the juvenile who died in part because the parents had been informed about proper sleeping arrangements for infants, which involved not having blankets in the crib. The court adjudicated the juvenile neglected and father appealed, arguing mother’s prior conviction and previous DSS cases involving her older children do not support current or future neglect regarding this juvenile. The court of appeals vacated the adjudication of neglect and remanded because there was no finding of any physical, mental, or emotional impairment or substantial risk of such impairment to the juvenile. Based on a dissent, DSS appealed to the supreme court.
- Under G.S. 7B-101(15), a neglected juvenile involves a parent who does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline or creates an injurious environment to the juvenile’s welfare. It is relevant if a juvenile lives in the home where another juvenile has died because of suspected abuse or neglect or another juvenile has been subjected to abuse or neglect by an adult who regularly lives in the home.
- In footnote 3, prior caselaw misusing the term “ultimate fact” is overturned. “[A]n ultimate finding is a finding supported by other evidentiary facts reached by natural reasoning” and is not a conclusion of law or a mixed question of law and fact. Quoting Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 470, 472 (1951), “[t]here are two kinds of facts: ultimate facts, and evidentiary facts. Ultimate facts are the final facts required to establish the plaintiff’s cause of action or the defendant’s defense; and evidentiary facts are those subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts…”. The court made ultimate findings that the juvenile does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from her parent and that she lived in an environment that was injurious to her welfare. The ultimate findings were supported by the evidentiary facts including that the juvenile lived in the same home as the mother, the mother’s prior criminal conviction, the adjudication of the older siblings, and the circumstances of the death of the younger sibling.
- An adjudication of neglect cannot be based solely on the adjudication of other juveniles. Rather, “there must ‘be some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide ‘proper care, supervision, or discipline.’ ‘ In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1, 9 (2019)” (emphasis in original). Sl. Op. at 11. There is no requirement that the trial court make a specific finding of the substantial risk of an impairment based on statute or supreme court precedent. Any opinions by the court of appeals that require a finding of fact is overruled. (Fn 5). Here the adjudication was also based on current circumstances that created a risk to this juvenile.
- Dissent: The younger infant’s cause of death was undetermined and also could be consistent with SIDS. This possibility is not addressed by the majority. The court of appeals correctly required the finding of harm or substantial risk of harm to the juvenile. The lack of requirement to require such a finding interferes with parents’ constitutional rights.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Findings of Fact