In re M.D., Jr., _ N.C. App. _ (July 1, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed

Facts: DSS and the guardian ad litem (GAL) appeal from the dismissal of an abuse and neglect petition involving a four-month-old infant. The petition was filed after the child suffered a choking incident while in the care of Mother and Father where the child was crying, grunting, vomited, and became limp. Father performed CPR although not trained in infant CPR. The child was taken to the emergency room where he was in cardiac arrest and not responsive upon arrival. The child was resuscitated by hospital staff, suffered subsequent seizure activity, and was later found to have sustained multiple injuries, including a subdural hematoma, a skull fracture, several healing stages of rib fractures, and a hematoma in one eye. At the adjudication hearing, DSS offered testimony from two social workers who had limited first-hand knowledge of the child’s injuries as neither of which was the investigating social worker who filed the petition, Mother, and Father. Mother’s and Father’s testimony, which was part of DSS’s case in chief since they were called by DSS, offered possible explanations for the injuries including Father’s CPR, hospital resuscitation efforts, Father hitting the child’s head on a door frame at some point, and/or the child’s vacuum-assisted delivery. Hospital medical records consisting of 1,500 pages were admitted as evidence. No medical expert testimony was offered. There was a CME that was not admitted. At the close of DSS’s evidence, parents’ counsel motioned to dismiss the petition. The trial court granted the motion, finding DSS had failed to meet their burden of proving that the child was abused or neglected.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is “manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted).
The rules of evidence in civil cases apply at an adjudicatory hearing. G.S. 7B-804. “At adjudication, the burden is on DSS to prove the allegations set forth in the petition by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ and the trial court . . . [is] tasked with weighing all competent evidence before it.” Sl. Op. at 12, quoting G.S. 7B-805 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). It is the role of the trial court to “pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.” Sl. Op. at 12 (citation omitted). “A dismissal under Rule 41(b) should be granted if the plaintiff has shown no right to relief or if the plaintiff has made out a colorable claim but the court nevertheless determines as the trier of fact that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the merits.” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted).
An abused juvenile is one whose parent inflicts or allows the infliction of serious physical injury by nonaccidental means or creates or allows the creation of a substantial risk of serious physical injury by nonaccidental means. Abuse adjudications have been upheld “where clear and convincing evidence supported the inference that the respondent-parents inflicted the child’s injuries or allowed them to be inflicted.” Sl. Op. at 15 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
A neglected juvenile is one whose parent does not provide proper care, supervision or discipline, or creates or allows an injurious living environment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting parents’ motion to dismiss. The trial court determined DSS failed to meet its burden of proof, explaining that DSS presented no evidence to explain or infer that the child’s injuries were nonaccidental and inflicted or allowed to be inflicted by Mother and Father as alleged. The court found that the over 1,500 pages of hospital records, admitted as business records and authenticated by affidavit, were limited in their usefulness without a medical expert to testify as to their content or offer any opinion about what the records might reveal about the child’s injuries. Testimonies of Mother and Father offered accidental explanations for the child’s injuries. The trial court properly reviewed the medical records to the best of its ability (noting it was not a medical expert or provider) without a medical expert and ultimately gave greater weight to the parents’ testimonies.