In re: A.C.Â, 247 N.C. App. 528

Background

April (b. Nov 2011) was placed in kinship care with her maternal aunt (intervenor) in May 2012; DSS filed a neglect petition in Aug 2012.
In March 2013 April was adjudicated neglected; the juvenile court returned sole legal and physical custody to respondent-mother at a Nov 6, 2013 review hearing (written order entered Jan 24, 2014) but the court retained jurisdiction.
After Nov 2013 respondent-mother left April in intervenor’s care, visited sporadically, provided little financial support, and allowed intervenor to perform medical/daycare tasks.
On Dec 19, 2014 respondent-mother forcibly removed April from daycare; intervenor filed to modify custody in Buncombe County in early Jan 2015.
Trial court (after 12 days of evidence) found respondent-mother had voluntarily left April in intervenor’s care indefinitely, that this conduct was inconsistent with her constitutionally protected parental status, that circumstances had substantially changed affecting April’s welfare, and awarded sole legal and physical custody to intervenor.

Issues

Issue	Intervenor's Argument	Respondent-mother's Argument	Held
May the court consider pre-6 Nov 2013 events when deciding a post-2013 custody modification?	Court may consider historical facts to assess subsequent conduct and changes; intervenor relied on whole history to show mother’s abdication.	Events already considered in the Jan 2014 order cannot be reused to modify custody; relevant timeframe is Nov 6, 2013 to Jan 2015.	Court may consider prior events as context; findings referring to pre-2013 facts were permissible (overrules mother’s objection).
Did respondent-mother act inconsistently with her constitutionally protected parental status (thus losing paramount interest)?	Yes: she voluntarily left April in intervenor’s care indefinitely, failed to maintain contact or support, provided no transition plan, and induced a stable caregiver-child relationship.	No: she intended placement to be temporary, sought to regain custody when able, and maintained parental intent; comparable cases (e.g., Grindstaff) favor parent.	Clear, cogent, convincing evidence supported findings that mother’s conduct amounted to inconsistency with parental status; mother lost paramount right.
Was there a substantial change in circumstances affecting April’s welfare linking to custody change?	Yes: prolonged nonparental custody followed by abrupt removal (Dec 2014) produced observable trauma and behavioral/mental health changes in April; change affected the child’s welfare.	No: court improperly relied on events and mental-health evidence occurring after intervenor’s filing; nexus insufficient.	Trial court’s findings show a substantial change and its adverse effect on April; nexus to welfare is established and/or self-evident.
Was awarding custody to intervenor in April’s best interest an abuse of discretion?	Award was supported by findings that intervenor provided stable, continuous care and that change served April’s best interest.	Mother argued procedural/statutory errors barred consideration of best-interest evidence.	No abuse of discretion; given loss of mother’s paramount status and findings on child’s welfare, awarding custody to intervenor was within court’s discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57 (2001) (Due Process protects parent's paramount right; government may displace custody only for unfitness or inconsistent conduct)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (standard that termination or permanent removal of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence)
Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (1997) (parental custody may yield where parent voluntarily permits child to remain long with others, creating in loco parentis relationship)
Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537 (2010) (loss of paramount status where parent cedes decision-making and creates durable nonparent caregiving expectation)
Shipman v. Shipman, 357 N.C. 471 (2003) (modification requires substantial change affecting child’s welfare and findings linking change to the child)
Grindstaff v. Byers, 152 N.C. App. 288 (2002) (distinguishes facts where parent maintained contact/support and resumed custody when able)
David N. v. Jason N., 359 N.C. 303 (2005) (requiring clear, cogent, and convincing findings when parental rights are affected)