In re K.E.P., _ N.C. App. _ (April 16, 2025)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Affirmed

Facts: Mother sought and was awarded civil custody of the child at issue in 2019. From 2018 to 2021, Cumberland DSS received five reports concerning Father’s maltreatment of the child, the first of which was not investigated and four of which were determined to be unsubstantiated. Cumberland DSS sought a child medical examination (CME) after the fifth report. The doctor performing the CME raised concern that the child had been evaluated for sexual allegations twice before and further physical examination could be traumatic for the child. In 2021, Mother and the child moved to Sampson County to live with the child’s maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. The same year, Sampson DSS received a report that Father had sexually abused the child. Sampson DSS sought a CME which determined the allegations were unsubstantiated and raised concern for the frequency that the child was presented to the emergency department with requests of evaluations for concerns of sexual abuse. Later in 2021, Sampson DSS received two more reports alleging Father’s maltreatment of the child. Sampson DSS sought a child and family forensic evaluation (CFE) which determined it was highly improbable that the child had been sexually abused as alleged and instead concluded that it was highly likely the child sustained some emotional abuse by Mother and her family. Sampson DSS attempted to implement a safety plan for the child to reside with Father but Mother refused. Sampson DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging the child abused and neglected, obtained nonsecure custody, and placed the child with Father. The child was adjudicated abused and neglected. The disposition order granted sole legal and physical custody to Father and the court entered a custody order to that effect under G.S. 7B-911. Mother appeals, arguing some findings lack necessary clarity to support the adjudications and that the court failed to determine whether the reports of suspected sexual abuse were made in bad faith. Mother’s evidentiary challenges are summarized separately.
Appellate courts review adjudication orders to determine “whether the trial court’s conclusions of law are supported by adequate findings and whether those findings, in turn, are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.” Sl. Op. at 5 (citation omitted).
An abused juvenile is one whose parent, guardian, custodian or caretaker “[c]reates or allows to be created serious emotional damage to the juvenile; serious emotional damage is evidenced by a juvenile’s severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior toward himself or others.” G.S. 7B-101(1)e. A neglected juvenile is one whose parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker “[d]oes not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline” or “[c]reates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” G.S. 7B-101(15)a., e.
The unchallenged findings combined with the challenged findings that are supported by clear and convincing evidence support the court’s adjudication of the child as abused and neglected. The court of appeals determined the binding finding that Mother either took the child for emergency room visits and exams or gave permission for the child to receive medical treatment during the emergency room visits resolves any alleged ambiguity in the findings as to who took the child to the emergency room visits and exams, and satisfies the “allows to be created” elements of the definitions of abused and neglected juveniles under G.S. 7B-101(1)e. and 7B-101(15)e.
The Juvenile Code does not require that a parent’s report of suspected abuse be made in bad faith in order to adjudicate a child as abused or neglected. In arguing that the court erred in failing to determine the reports to DSS were made in bad faith, Mother cites to G.S. 7B-309, which grants immunity to persons making a report of suspected child abuse or neglect in good faith. An adjudication of abuse or neglect does not concern the liability of a parent and therefore making good faith reports in cooperation with G.S. 7B-309 “cannot provide ‘cover’ against an adjudication of abuse or neglect.” Sl. Op. at 7. “[T]he determinative factors [with regard to neglect] are the circumstances and conditions surrounding the child, not the fault or culpability of the parent.” Sl. Op. at 17 (citation omitted). “[W]hen a parent’s reports of sexual abuse precipitate further investigation in an ongoing juvenile case, the proper focus of the trial court in an adjudication hearing is on the effect of those reports – and their investigation – on the child, not the sincerity of the parent’s reporting.” Sl. Op. at 18 (relying on In re B.C., ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025), noting in both cases a parent misunderstood the focus of the adjudicatory proceedings).
Mother raised no independent arguments concerning the disposition order and private custody order. Those orders are also affirmed.