In re K.R., ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 20, 2026)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: The child at issue experienced breathing problems after birth that necessitated hospitalization for two days. DSS was notified when Mother was insistent on leaving the hospital with the newborn against medical advice. Medical providers eventually convinced Mother to keep the child at the hospital for treatment. DSS interviewed Mother who reported that she was facing eviction and suffered from depression and anxiety. DSS also noted Mother’s paranoid behavior surrounding the hospital and their documentation. Mother secured a hotel room for the night but would not share specifics with DSS regarding the hotel or further housing plans. DSS filed a petition alleging the child was neglected and dependent based on concerns for Mother’s mental health and ability to provide stable housing and care for the child. Mother entered a case plan with DSS that required her to obtain and maintain stable housing, complete a parenting psychological evaluation, complete a mental health assessment, and participate in needed therapy. Mother identified a friend as a possible placement for the child, but the friend declined. Mother continued to name the friend as the alternative care provider despite being notified that the friend had declined the placement. The newborn was adjudicated neglected and dependent, and Mother appealed both adjudications.
- Appellate courts review a neglect or dependency 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 “does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline; has abandoned the juvenile . . . ; has not provided or arranged for the provision of necessary medical or remedial care; or creates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” Sl. Op. at 8, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15) (cleaned up in original). “Only one basis is required for an adjudication of neglect.” Sl. Op. at 8. Appellate courts have additionally required that there 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.” Id. (citation omitted). In the case of newborns, “the decision of the trial court must of necessity be predictive in nature, as the trial court must assess whether there is a substantial risk of future abuse or neglect of a child based on the historical facts of the case.” Id. (citation omitted). The trial court “need not wait for actual harm to occur to the child if there is a substantial risk of harm to the child in the home.” Id. (citation omitted). There must be evidence that the child’s environment resulted in harm or a substantial risk of harm for the trial court to support a determination the child resides in an injurious environment. A parent’s inability to provide stable housing pursuant to a case plan can be considered in finding an injurious environment. A parent’s unaddressed mental health issues can support an adjudication of neglect if there is a clear “causal connection between the mental illness and the incapacity to provide proper care[.]” Sl. Op. at 9 (citation omitted). Additionally, a parent’s refusal to cooperate with DSS also shows a substantial risk of future harm that can support a conclusion that the juvenile is neglected.
- The trial court’s conclusions that the child lacked proper care or supervision and was living in an injurious environment are supported by the findings and the evidence. The challenged findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence shows that Mother was insistent on leaving the hospital with the newborn against medical advice and did not understand the risk associated with the newborn’s breathing issues or need for additional treatment; Mother failed to complete mental health assessments and therapy as ordered in her case plan, revoked her consent for DSS to review her medical records, and DSS was concerned for Mother’s ability to understand the newborn’s needs, including feeding needs, and DSS’s involvement; and Mother was facing eviction, had not shared her hotel location with DSS, and had not complied with her case plan to obtain stable housing. There was a substantial risk of harm to the child based on the findings demonstrating Mother may disregard or fail to seek medical care, leave her mental health concerns unaddressed, and lack stable housing for the child. The findings do not support the conclusion that the child was neglected by abandonment.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Neglect