In re N.R.R.N., ___ N.C. App. ___ (February 5, 2025)
Held:
Affirmed in Part; Vacated in Part.
- Facts: DSS filed a juvenile petition and obtained nonsecure custody of the infant at issue two days after her birth. The petition was primarily based on injuries sustained by the infant’s sibling one year earlier and the failure by Mother and Father to offer any explanation for the sibling’s severe injuries. The sibling was adjudicated abused and neglected, affirmed by the court of appeals. In re N.N., ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 15, 2024). The infant at issue was adjudicated abused and neglected after the court found the infant was at substantial risk of harm based on the severe unexplained injuries of the sibling at around the same age as this juvenile. Mother and Father appeal, arguing the findings are not supported by sufficient evidence and the findings are insufficient to support the adjudication of the infant as abused. They challenge the court’s reliance on testimony by the DSS social worker that relied on the verified petition, the court’s use of verbatim language from the allegations in the petition in 10 of its 15 findings, and that the clear, cogent, and convincing standard requires more analysis from the trial court.
- An adjudication order is reviewed to “determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 3 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
- “[I]t is not per se reversible error for a trial court’s fact findings to mirror the wording of the petition or other pleading . . .” Sl. Op. at 6 (citation omitted). The reviewing court must determine whether the record shows the trial court found ultimate facts necessary to dispose the case based on the evidence before it through logical reasoning, “regardless of whether they mirror the language used in the petition.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). Here, in reviewing the findings, some of which were verbatim recitations of allegations in the petition, the court independently made the ultimate findings of fact, using logical reasoning based on the evidence before it.
- “Where a prior order adjudicates a sibling to be abused and neglected, and DSS relies upon the prior order in allegations regarding another sibling’s risk of being subjected to similar harms, the trial court may rely upon this evidence in making its findings of fact.” Sl. Op. at 11-12 (citation omitted). The trial court properly relied on the prior abuse and neglect adjudication and disposition orders of the sibling relating to the unexplained nonaccidental injuries she sustained while in parents’ exclusive care at a similar age.
- The trial court’s findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, including the limited testimony of the social worker, the petition, and the adjudication and disposition orders of the sibling. The social worker testified to the truth and accuracy of the petition’s allegations and attested to their truth and accuracy at the time of the hearing. Neither parents’ counsel objected to admission of the petition into evidence, presented any evidence opposing the allegations in the petition, or elected to cross-examine the social worker, noted by the court in its adjudicatory findings. A court may rely on the allegations in the petition that are testified to by the DSS social worker as true. There are no magic words the social worker must testify to.
- Clear and convincing evidence is the same standard as clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The court rejected Mother’s argument about how a court considers the sufficiency of the evidence under the clear and convincing standard, by citing to a California Supreme Court case that resolved a split in California appellate opinions. North Carolina has no such split of authority and the court of appeals is bound by precedent of the NC supreme court.
- An abused juvenile is one whose “parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker . . .creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of serious physical injury to the juvenile by other than accidental means[.]” G.S. 7B-101(1). Unlike adjudicating a child as neglected based on prior abuse or neglect of a sibling, there is “no caselaw supporting the notion that past abuse of a sibling – either standing alone or joined with some other factors – can serve as sufficient grounds for also finding a sibling presently abused.” Sl. Op. at 19 (emphasis in original). There must be direct action of the parent harming the child or placing the child at substantial risk of harm. Here, the trial court made no findings that the infant has been subjected to harm by her parents or that she faced a substantial risk of harm due to her parents’ care or supervision. Findings of the serious injuries sustained by the sibling and the parents’ inability to explain those injuries are insufficient to support the adjudication of the infant as abused. The abuse adjudication is reversed.
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
AdjudicationTopic:
Abuse