In re M.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (February 18, 2026)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: Mother’s child was adjudicated neglected and dependent due to concerns for Mother’s mental health, parenting skills, and substance use. During permanency planning, Mother was ordered not to discuss the case or people involved with the case on social media. Mother appeals the permanency planning order, challenging the provision as exceeding the trial court’s dispositional authority and a violation of her constitutional rights.
- Dispositional orders, including all dispositional choices, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will only be overturned “upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Sl. Op. at 8.
- G.S. 7B-904(d1)(3) grants the trial court dispositional authority to order a parent to “[t]ake appropriate steps to remedy conditions in the home that led to or contributed to the juvenile’s adjudication or to the court’s decision to remove custody of the juvenile to the parent.” Though broad, the court of appeals has noted this authority is not unlimited, stating “there must be a nexus between the step ordered by the court and a condition that is found or alleged to have led to or contributed to the adjudication.” Sl. Op. at 12 (citation omitted).
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Mother not to discuss the case or individuals involved in the matter on social media. A nexus exists between Mother’s behaviors during the case and the trial court’s limitation. The child was adjudicated and removed from Mother’s care based on Mother’s need to address her mental health, parenting skills, and substance use. The unchallenged findings in the PPO include the same types of behavior that contributed to the child’s adjudication, including Mother’s pattern of abusive and threatening social media posts. Findings showed Mother’s posts threatened suicide, claimed child abuse by DSS employees, and threatened specific social workers and other involved in the case. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded Mother’s social media activity could discourage DSS employees and others from working with the child and directly harm the child if the child were to see the publicly available posts. The trial court concluded Mother’s continued discussion of the case and those involved on social media was not in the child’s best interests. The gag order was limited to Mother’s discussion on social media of matters and individuals involved with the case and was not a prohibition on Mother’s use of social media generally or from her speaking to others about the case.
- Mother failed to make a constitutional argument to the trial court and therefore failed to preserve her constitutional argument for appeal.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Disposition (All Stages Post-Adjudication)Topic:
Court Authority to Order Case Plan