Held:

Affirmed

There is a dissent

by Tyson, J.

Facts: The six-week old infant and older sibling lived with Mother, Father, and Maternal Grandmother (caretaker). The infant was born at home in a frank breech position (folded in half, buttocks first). At six-weeks, Mother and Father took the infant to the emergency room after the infant appeared fussier than normal and cried when lifting her leg. The infant was diagnosed with 16 fractures at various stages of healing, including both clavicles, several ribs, the proximal and distal tibia, distal femurs, and right mid-femur, as well as a subconjunctival hemorrhage of the eye and bruise on the right leg. The attending physician concluded the clavicle fractures could be attributed to the birth trauma but concluded the other fractures were highly specific for abuse or inflicted injury. The attending physician ruled out several bone disorders but could not rule out Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (a disorder shared by both parents) due to the child’s age. Upon discharge, the infant and her sibling were temporarily placed with their paternal grandparents where Mother and Father were permitted to live so long as contact with the children was supervised. DSS filed petitions alleging the infant abused and neglected and the sibling neglected. During the proceedings, Mother and Father acknowledged that they and grandmother were the only caregivers to the child but denied intentionally or negligently inflicting the injuries, explaining the injuries were either from birth, treatment from other physicians since birth, and/or a genetic disorder. Both children were adjudicated neglected and the infant also as abused after the court weighed conflicting testimony and found Mother and Father’s medical expert not credible. Mother and Father challenge the adjudication arguing several findings are unsupported by the evidence and that the findings do not support the conclusions of abuse and neglect.
Appellate courts review an adjudication to determine whether the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
“An ‘[a]bused’ juvenile is one ‘whose parent, guardian, custodian or caretaker’ either ‘[i]nflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the juvenile a serious physical injury by other than accidental means.’ ” Sl. Op. at 5, quoting G.S. 7B-101(1)(a). An abuse adjudication can be supported where the child sustains unexplained, non-accidental injuries and there is no “pattern of abuse or the presence of risk factors.” Sl. Op. at 8. However, “there must be a[n evidentiary] bridge between [the child]’s unexplained injuries and the conclusion that Respondents inflicted the injury . . .” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted).
“A ‘neglected’ juvenile is one ‘whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker’ engages in certain statutorily defined criteria, including failing to ‘provide proper care, supervision, or discipline’ or ‘[c]reat[ing] or allow[ing] to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” Sl. Op. at 5, quoting G.S. 7B-101(a), (e).
Unchallenged findings support the trial court’s conclusions that the infant is an abused and neglected juvenile. Findings include that the child suffered serious physical injuries including numerous fractures in various stages of healing while in the sole care of Mother, Father and grandmother (caretaker); the injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma; there were no indicators that the child had any medical conditions that could have caused the injuries; and that the child did not suffer any additional fractures during the 2.5 months she was in the temporary safety placement before the petition was filed. “[T]hese findings provide the necessary bridge between [the child]’s injuries and the trial court’s conclusions.” Sl. Op. at 8.
Dissent: Challenged findings are unsupported by the evidence and the conclusion that the child is an abused or neglected juvenile is not supported by the findings. Respondents presented conflicting evidence that the infant had been handled by many medical providers prior to admission to the ER and provided several possible medical explanations for the infant’s serious physical injuries. Respondents promptly and voluntarily sought treatment for their child. DSS did not meet its burden of proof to support the inference that the child was injured while in Respondents’ care. The order should be remanded.