In re P.G., _ N.C. App. _ (March 18, 2026)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed

Facts: This case involves Mother’s appeal of the neglect adjudication of her three children. The neglect adjudication was based on Mother’s substance use while caring for the children, Mother’s untreated mental health issues, and domestic violence between Mother and Father. Specific incidents included law enforcement involvement when Mother was irritated and confused and ripped a phone from Father’s hands; Mother locking the social worker out of her home; and Mother being intoxicated while caring for the children. Additionally, after the petition was filed, Mother sent hundreds of offensive text messages to a social worker; had multiple attorneys withdraw; was escorted multiple times by law enforcement from Father’s home with the children present; and was arrested for trespassing and resisting a public officer at the DSS office. The adjudicatory hearing was continued when the trial court observed Mother appearing ‘passed out or asleep’ and again when Mother failed to appear. The trial court ordered a mistrial after the first adjudicatory hearing and the children were adjudicated neglected at the subsequent adjudicatory hearing. At disposition, the court ordered custody to Father, terminated jurisdiction in the 7B action and transferred the case to Chapter 50. Mother appeals, arguing several findings in the adjudication order are unsupported because the evidence involved post-petition evidence and testimony from the first adjudicatory hearing that ended in a mistrial.
The Rules of Evidence apply at adjudicatory hearings in juvenile proceedings. “Assuming an evidentiary objection is properly preserved, a party may argue on appeal that any findings supported solely by inadmissible evidence are infirm and cannot support the trial court’s conclusions of law.” Sl. Op. at 15 (citation omitted).
Nine challenged findings related to Mother’s mental health, including post-petition assessments and recommendations, Mother’s lack of treatment, and Mother’s erratic behavior in the presence of the children and the court are supported by the evidence. While the adjudicatory inquiry focuses on the status of the child at the time the juvenile petition is filed, “[c]onditions ‘which pertain[] to mental illness . . . have been determined by [the Court of Appeals] to be fixed and ongoing circumstances so that post-petition evidence about them is allowed to be considered in a neglect adjudication.” Sl. Op. at 18 (citation omitted). Relying on In re A.J., 386 N.C. 409 (2024), evidence of Mother’s extreme hostility and aggressive behavior directed to Father, DSS, and law enforcement, and her refusal to follow through on her case plan, relate to Mother’s ongoing mental health conditions alleged in the neglect petition and were properly considered by the trial court. The consideration of post-petition evidence related to a fixed and ongoing circumstance alleged in the petition is the precedent of the court of appeals and has not been overturned by the NC Supreme Court.
Mother did not properly preserve her challenge to the finding concerning domestic violence incidents in the presence of the children. On appeal Mother argues the finding was improperly based on Mother’s testimony from the prior adjudicatory hearing that resulted in a mistrial, but at the trial level, Mother argued that the statements were made after the petition was filed; Mother cannot ‘swap horses’ on appeal.
Assuming preservation, the challenged finding is supported. Although a mistrial means there has been no trial, testimony from that prior hearing is not excluded as admissible evidence at the subsequent hearing. Mother’s statements from the prior hearing are admissible as statements of a party opponent pursuant to Rule 801(d) even though a mistrial of that prior hearing was declared. Here, the statements were offered through social worker testimony and admission was proper.
Portions of seven other challenged findings are supported by the evidence, including testimony of law enforcement, DSS, Father, and a witness to one of the reported incidents involving Mother’s erratic behavior. A portion of one finding is disregarded to the extent it states the incident happened in the presence of all of the children as the record shows only one child was present at that particular incident. Other challenged findings were not reviewed because “they do not affect the conclusion.” Sl. Op. at 24.