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 adjudications arguing several findings are unsupported by the evidence and that the findings do not support the conclusions of 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.
“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.
Neglected sibling: The supreme court has held that “[w]hen a child is severely abused in the parents’ care, and the parents cannot provide any plausible explanation for how those injuries occurred or assure social workers that the abuse will not happen again, the trial court properly can find that there is an unacceptable risk of similar abuse to other children in that same home in the future[,]” supporting a conclusion of neglect. Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted).
The trial court’s conclusion that the older child is a neglected juvenile is supported by the findings, including that the infant suffered 16 unexplained fractures while in the exclusive care of Mother, Father, and caretaker for which the trial court determined were the result of abuse. The trial court found the child lived and would continue to live in the home where his sibling had been abused and neglected and ultimately determined that there is an unacceptable risk of similar abuse to the older child in the future. The trial court made ultimate findings that Mother, Father and caretaker do not provide proper care, supervision or discipline and created or allowed a living environment injurious to the older child’s welfare.
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 findings do not support the conclusion the older child is a neglected juvenile. There is a five-year age difference between the infant that suffered serious physical harm while in the home and the child at issue and no evidence was presented or findings made that show Mother and Father had provided an unsafe environment for the older child over his life. Mother and Father could not explain the sibling’s serious injuries while in their care but provided possible medical explanations as well as several instances where they took the infant to medical providers prior to admission to the ER. Regarding the sibling, the trial court did not resolve directly conflicting evidence to make ultimate findings needed to support the court’s conclusion the child was abused and neglected. The order should be remanded.