In re E.H., _ N.C. _ (August 22, 2025)

New Search

Print Results

Held:

Reversed in Part

Facts and procedural history: This case arises on discretionary review and writ of certiorari from a divided decision of the court of appeals, 294 N.C. App. 139 (2024) vacating in part and remanding the trial court’s adjudication of one of two children. The PDR was granted to reaffirm supreme court precedent. The court of appeals affirmed the adjudication of the younger child as abused and neglected based on the three-week-old suffering several nonaccidental acute bone fractures while in the exclusive care of Mother and Father for which the parents denied any trauma or incident had occurred to cause the serious injuries and offered no explanation beyond that they heard a “pop” during a diaper change. Without a plausible explanation or accepting responsibility for the infant’s serious injuries, the trial court rendered the parents’ home “an injurious environment for any juvenile” and adjudicated the infant’s 4-year-old older brother as neglected. Sl. Op. at 5. The court of appeals vacated the sibling’s neglect adjudication, holding the trial court relied solely on the abuse or neglect of the younger sibling and failed to make sufficient findings regarding either abuse of the older child or the probability of future neglect of the older child.
Adjudication orders are reviewed to determine whether the adjudication is supported by adequate findings of fact which in turn are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
A neglected juvenile is one whose parent “does not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline” or “creates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the juvenile’s welfare.” G.S. 7B101(15)(a), (e). “[I]n determining whether a juvenile is a neglected juvenile, it is relevant whether that juvenile . . . lives in a home where another juvenile has been subjected to abuse or neglect by an adult who regularly lives in the home.” Sl. Op. at 7, quoting G.S. 7B-101(15) (emphasis in original). Appellate precedent holds that while a neglect adjudication cannot be based solely upon the abuse or neglect of another child in the home, other factors surrounding the abuse itself can indicate other children in the home could face similar harm and support a conclusion of neglect. “[W]hen another child in the same home has suffered some abuse or injury, the trial court should assess how and why the harm occurred, whether other children in the home could be subject to that same harm, and whether the parents display a willingness to ‘remedy the injurious environment’ that caused the harm so that it cannot occur again.” Sl. Op. at 8, quoting In re A.J.L.H., 384 N.C. 45, 56 (2023) and In re A.W., 377 N.C. 238, 249 (2021). “Facts that can demonstrate a parent’s unwillingness to remedy the injurious environment include offering an ‘implausible explanation’ for the abuse of another child, ‘failing to acknowledge’ another child’s abuse, or ‘insisting that the parent did nothing wrong when the facts show the parent is responsible for the abuse.’ ” Sl. Op. at 8-9, quoting In re A.J.L.H., 384 N.C. at 56 and citing In re A.W., 377 N.C. at 248-49. The trial court is not required “to find a specific pattern of past abuse or specific facts that predict when and how future abuse might occur.” Sl. Op. at 10.
The trial court’s adjudication of the older child as neglected was supported by adequate findings of fact which were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Findings included that the older brother was four years old and a “similar ‘tender’ age to his younger sibling”, that Mother and Father did not provide “any plausible explanation” for the infant’s injuries, that Mother and Father were “responsible” for the infant’s injuries, and that Mother and Father “continue to maintain that they were not responsible for these injuries, and as such, renders their home an injurious environment for any juvenile as there are no reasonable means to protect the juvenile from a similar injury occurring in the home.” Sl. Op. at 10. These findings are sufficient to support the conclusion of neglect under supreme court precedent reaffirmed in recent decisions: In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1 (2019), In re D.W.P., 373 N.C. 327 (2020), In re A.W., 377 N.C. 238 (2021), and In re A.J.L.H., 384 N.C. 45 (2023). While a trial court is not required to make a finding that there is an “unacceptable risk of similar abuse to other children in that same home in the future” based on these facts (noting a trial court could find that other children in the same home are not at risk of similar harm because of a large age difference), the trial court here properly found there was an unacceptable risk of similar abuse to the other child in the home based on the findings that the infant’s injuries were “non-confessed” and “unexplained”. Sl. Op. at 11, n.1.