In re K.C. ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA14-210
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 5 August 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
K.C., H.C., C.C., S.C. Edgecombe County
Nos. 12 JA 59-62
Appeal by Respondent-Mother from orders entered 16 July
2013 by Judge William C. Farris and 29 October 2013 by Judge
William G. Stewart in District Court, Edgecombe County. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 8 July 2014.
Lawrence, Best & Associates, P.A., by Natarlin R. Best, for
Petitioner-Appellee Edgecombe County Department of Social
Services.
Edward Eldred for Respondent-Appellant Mother.
McGEE, Judge.
Respondent-Mother (“the Mother”) appeals from orders
adjudicating her four children (“the children”) neglected and
continuing legal custody of the children with the Edgecombe
County Department of Social Services (“DSS”). We affirm.
-2-
This is the second appeal in this matter. DSS became
involved in 2011 with the Mother, her husband (“the
stepfather”), and the children when DSS received a report that
the Mother had been criminally charged with “stealing pills from
a woman in Franklin County and had sped away with two of the
children and [the stepfather] in the car.” At the time, the
Mother, the stepfather, and the children (collectively, “the
family”) were living with the stepfather’s parents. DSS found
the family to be in need of services due to substance abuse and
an injurious environment. The Mother entered into a safety plan
pursuant to which the family would reside at the home of the
stepfather’s parents and the children would be supervised at all
times by the stepfather’s parents.
DSS filed a petition alleging that the children were
neglected and dependent on 21 February 2012. DSS alleged that
the Mother and the stepfather lacked housing of their own; that
the Mother and the stepfather abused prescription drugs and used
marijuana daily; that the Mother and the stepfather engaged in
acts of domestic violence; that the children did not attend
school regularly while under the Mother’s care; and that the
Mother did not comply with the safety plan when she took the
children to the State of Virginia.
-3-
The Mother moved out of the stepfather’s parents’ home on
17 April 2012, at which time the stepfather’s parents were no
longer willing to provide care for the children and requested
that the children be removed by 24 April 2012. At the Mother’s
request, the children were placed with the Mother in the home of
a relative. The children remained in the home of the relative
until the relative was arrested for trafficking narcotics on 10
may 2012, and DSS placed the children in a licensed foster home.
The trial court held a hearing on the petition on 26 June
2012. By an amended adjudication and disposition order entered
20 September 2012, the trial court adjudicated the children
neglected and continued placement of the children in foster
homes. The Mother appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial
court’s findings of fact were insufficient to support its
conclusion that the children were neglected. This Court
reversed the adjudication and disposition order, and remanded
the case for further action. In re K.C., ___ N.C. App. ___, 745
S.E.2d 375 (2013) (unpublished).
Upon remand, the trial court entered an order on 16 July
2013, adjudicating the children neglected. In a separate
disposition order, the trial court concluded it was in the best
interest of the children that they remain in the legal custody
-4-
of DSS. The trial court ordered that DSS be relieved of
unification efforts with the Mother and with the natural father
of the children. The Mother appeals.
The Mother contends the trial court erred in concluding
that her children were neglected juveniles. We disagree.
This Court has stated that: “The purpose of abuse, neglect
and dependency proceedings is for the court to determine whether
the juvenile should be adjudicated as having the status of
abused, neglected or dependent.” In re J.S., 182 N.C. App. 79,
86, 641 S.E.2d 395, 399 (2007). Accordingly, the role of this
Court in reviewing a trial court’s adjudication of neglect and
abuse is to determine “(1) whether the findings of fact are
supported by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ and (2) whether
the legal conclusions are supported by the findings of fact.”
In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365
(2000)(citations omitted). If this evidence exists, the
findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the
evidence would support a finding to the contrary. In re McCabe,
157 N.C. App. 673, 679, 580 S.E.2d 69, 73 (2003).
A neglected juvenile is one “who does not receive proper
care, supervision, or discipline” from a parent or caretaker, or
“who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile’s
-5-
welfare[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2013). This Court
has held that an adjudication of neglect requires “that there be
some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile
or a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the
failure to provide proper care, supervision, or discipline.” In
re Safriet, 112 N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-02
(1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To support its conclusion that the children were neglected
in that they lived in an environment injurious to their welfare,
the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact:
5. The [M]other [] and [the stepfather] are
addicted to prescription pain medication and
used said drugs and marijuana daily while
caring for the children. They are not
employed and rely upon [the stepfather’s
parents] for food, shelter, and clothing for
themselves and the minor children.
6. The [M]other took at least one of the
children with her on several occasions to
hospital emergency rooms in Nash and Wilson
Counties complaining of kidney stones and
seeking pain medication. While at the Nash
emergency room with her one year old child,
[Respondent] fell asleep.
7. On September 9, 2011, the [M]other drove
with the stepfather and [Mr. P.] and with
the children [K.C.] and [S.C.] to the Family
Dollar store in Castalia, N.C. to purchase
stolen prescription drugs. The [M]other was
arrested on criminal charges involving the
stolen drugs, but the charges were later
dismissed.
-6-
8. The stepfather [] also abused pain
medication and sold the family’s food stamps
to obtain said drugs. The [stepfather] also
used the children’s Attention Deficit
Disorder medications recreationally.
9. Prior to moving into the home of [the
stepfather’s parents], the [M]other failed
to have her children attend school
regularly. The three older children have a
history of excessive absences. With the
help of [the stepfather’s parents], the
children were properly clothed and well-
nourished, and they attended school
regularly[.]
10. In September, 2011, the [M]other agreed
on a safety plan with Edgecombe County
Department of Social Services to address the
needs of her children which included drug
treatment for the [M]other; not leaving the
children alone with the [M]other and [the
stepfather]; and living with the children in
[the stepfather’s parents’] home. But the
[M]other failed to appear for appointments
with her caseworker; failed a drug screen;
failed to take several drug screens;
attended drug counseling sporadically; moved
with the children to Virginia without notice
to DSS or [the stepfather’s parents] in
December, 2011 with no firm plans for
housing there; and did not enroll the
children in school in Virginia. Mr. [D.]
went to Virginia on December 15, 2011 and
brought the children and the [M]other back
to his home.
11. The [M]other exhibited extreme mood
swings in the presence of her caseworker and
her children. She was cordial and
cooperative at times but angry, cursing,
crying, shaking, and nauseated at other
times. The [M]other reported to the
-7-
Department of Social Services that she was
in physical discomfort from drug withdrawal.
The Mother challenges the portion of finding of fact 10
that she “moved with the children to Virginia without notice to
DSS or [the stepfather’s parents] in December, 2011 with no firm
plans for housing there[.]” The Mother asserts the evidence
shows that DSS and the stepfather’s parents were given notice
and that she had plans for housing.
The Mother is correct that she called a DSS investigator on
the day she was moving to Virginia and gave the investigator “an
address that [the Mother] would be moving to and a phone number
that [the Mother] could be contacted with[.]” The DSS social
worker assigned to the family testified that she initially
received information from the stepfather’s mother, but explained
to her that it would be better if she could hear from the
Mother, “[a]nd then [the Mother] did contact [the social worker]
and leave a contact number.” There is no direct testimony from
the stepfather’s parents concerning the notice to them from the
Mother of her move to Virginia. However, the social worker
testified she initially received information about the Mother’s
move to Virginia from the stepfather’s mother and only later
from the Mother. While the Mother did make contact with DSS and
-8-
the stepfather’s parents, she failed to provide a “specific plan
for the safety of the children.”
The social worker also testified (1) that the agency was
concerned because the Mother had uprooted the children “with no
specific plan for the safety of the children[,]” and (2) the
Mother had returned to North Carolina after a few days because
“she had nowhere to stay[.]” As to housing, the social worker
also testified the Mother first took the children to the
residence of her mother and then to the residence of her cousin;
however, at neither location was there any place available for
the Mother and the children. We therefore conclude that, while
the Mother did make contact with DSS and the stepfather’s
parents, it was more important for the well-being of the
children that she provide a specific plan for the safety of the
children, and she failed to do so. The portion of finding of
fact 10 challenged by the Mother is supported by the evidence.
The Mother also contends the trial court erred in
adjudicating her children neglected because the findings failed
to establish a risk of harm to the children. While it is
generally true that findings of actual or substantial risk of
harm are necessary to support an adjudication of neglect, this
Court has held that an adjudication lacking such findings may
-9-
nonetheless be affirmed when “all the evidence supports such a
finding.” Safriet at 753, 436 S.E.2d at 902.
In this case, the enumerated findings of fact show that the
Mother lacked stable housing and income, abused marijuana and
prescription drugs, engaged in domestic violence, and did not
properly supervise the children’s school attendance. Further,
the Mother disregarded the safety plan to the detriment of her
children’s well-being by removing them from school in mid-
December and taking them to Virginia. The trial court’s
findings demonstrate an injurious environment which had the
effect of placing the children at substantial risk of physical
or emotional impairment. As a result, we affirm the trial
court’s determination that the children were neglected
juveniles.
Affirmed.
Judges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).