In re: C.B. & S.B.
783 S.E.2d 206
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Twin girls C.B. and S.B., age ten, were the subjects of juvenile petitions by Buncombe County DSS alleging S.B. was neglected and dependent and C.B. neglected; DSS obtained nonsecure custody of S.B. during the case.
- S.B. had repeated psychiatric hospitalizations (five times over ~4 months) for violent, runaway, and assaultive behavior; medical staff recommended intensive services and placement in a psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF).
- Mother repeatedly declined or obstructed recommended mental-health interventions for S.B. (refused releases, missed/discontinued referrals, declined intensive in‑home services, resisted discharge planning and PRTF placement).
- C.B. was repeatedly present and exposed to S.B.’s violent and erratic incidents; Mother did not pursue separate assessment or adequate protective steps for C.B.
- Trial court adjudicated S.B. neglected and dependent and C.B. neglected; Mother appealed, including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to review/subpoena medical witnesses/records.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DSS’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. is a neglected juvenile | Mother: case reflects disagreement about treatment choices, not neglect | Trial court: Mother minimized S.B.’s condition, failed to obtain needed medical care and obstructed discharge planning, placing S.B. at substantial risk | Affirmed — S.B. adjudicated neglected |
| Whether S.B. is a dependent juvenile | Mother: parent–hospital disagreement, Mother able to care for S.B. | Trial court: Mother unable/unwilling to provide required care or identify viable alternative placement | Affirmed — S.B. adjudicated dependent |
| Whether C.B. is a neglected juvenile | Mother: mere exposure to sibling’s mental‑health episodes and disagreement over treatment does not equal neglect of C.B. | Trial court: C.B. was repeatedly exposed to dangerous incidents and mother failed to protect or seek services for mitigation | Affirmed — C.B. adjudicated neglected |
| Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel | Mother: counsel failed to review Copestone records and subpoena treating hospital witnesses | DSS/majority: records were in evidence and reviewed in camera; tactical choices and overwhelming evidence make prejudice unlikely | Denied — no ineffective assistance shown on record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McLean, 135 N.C. App. 387 (discussing requirement of physical, mental, or emotional impairment or substantial risk for neglect)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental fundamental right to make child‑rearing decisions)
- Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142 (state must respect fit parents’ liberty interest absent findings of unfitness or neglect)
- In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423 (dependency requires findings on both parental ability and alternative child‑care availability)
- In re L.H., 210 N.C. App. 355 (parent must take action to identify viable alternative placements)
- State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553 (standard for ineffective‑assistance prejudice inquiry)