In re D.W.P., 838 S.E.2d 396

Background

March 2015: Eleven-month-old David was treated for an acute femur fracture; imaging revealed multiple rib, clavicle and limb fractures in different stages of healing. Mother and her then-fiancé (Mr. Goff) were the sole caretakers when injuries occurred.
GCDHHS removed David and his sister Briana and filed juvenile petitions; David was adjudicated abused/neglected; Briana was later adjudicated neglected after a stipulation following an earlier remand.
Mother offered various explanations for David’s injuries (dog, biological father, later saying he may have “slept funny”), entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor child abuse in November 2017, and was placed on probation with conditions referencing mental-health evaluation and treatment.
Trial court ceased reunification (Dec. 2017), GCDHHS filed for termination (Mar. 2018), and the district court terminated mother’s parental rights (Jan. 23, 2019), citing failure to make reasonable progress and a likelihood of future neglect—focusing on mother’s refusal to provide a credible account, resumption of contact with Mr. Goff, probation noncompliance, and concealment of a subsequent marriage.
Mother appealed, arguing key findings lacked clear, cogent, and convincing evidentiary support; the Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the termination; Justice Earls dissented, contending the record lacked proof the mother lied or presently posed a likely risk, and that termination as to Briana was unsupported.

Issues

Issue	GCDHHS / Petitioner Argument	Mother (Respondent) Argument	Held
Whether mother’s inconsistent explanations and refusal to admit how David was injured support finding she failed to make reasonable progress and poses a likelihood of future neglect	Mother gave multiple medically-inconsistent explanations, never accepted responsibility or identified perpetrator, and resumed risky relationships; therefore Department cannot devise a safe reunification plan	Mother maintains she does not know how injuries occurred, completed services, and there is no direct evidence she caused injuries; inability to explain ≠ concealment or future risk	Majority: affirmed — findings supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence and support conclusion of likely future neglect
Whether mother violated probation / case-plan obligations by failing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation	Psychiatric assessment was recommended and its completion (and related treatment) was a condition of probation and case supervision	Mother says psychiatric evaluation was not clearly required by her case plan and she was unaware it was a discrete obligation; thus no willful probation violation	Majority: affirmed that evaluation/related participation was a probation condition and failure to complete supported finding; dissent disagreed on record evidence
Whether resuming contact with Mr. Goff and subsequent domestic-violence incidents demonstrated continued unsafe household dynamics	Mother reconnected with Mr. Goff, gave him home access, did not notify the Department, and domestic-violence incidents followed—showing she failed to protect children and maintained unsafe relationships	Mother was victim of Mr. Goff’s criminal acts and did not create the assaults; relationship may have been non-romantic; evidence does not prove she caused the violence or knowingly created an unreasonable risk	Majority: affirmed findings that she resumed contact and maintained relationship despite domestic violence; dissent found insufficient basis to fault mother for victimization
Whether termination as to Briana (younger sibling) was supported given the record	Briana lived in the same injurious environment; mother’s failure to remedy causes and risk to children justified adjudication of neglect and termination	Dissent: record lacked specific, current evidence that Briana faced substantial risk; relying only on brother’s injuries and mother’s inability to explain is insufficient	Majority: affirmed termination for neglect as supported by findings about past conditions and likelihood of future neglect; dissent would reverse as to Briana

Key Cases Cited

In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (standard of review in termination proceedings: findings must be supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence)
In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394 (1982) (appellate review requires findings support conclusions of law)
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93 (1991) (unchallenged factual findings at adjudicatory stage are binding on appeal)
In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708 (1984) (when child has long been separated, petitioner must show prior neglect and likelihood of future neglect)
In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835 (2016) (termination requires proof of grounds by clear, cogent, convincing evidence and analysis of parent fitness at time of proceeding)
In re M.A.W., 370 N.C. 149 (2017) (clarifies need to show prior neglect plus likelihood of future neglect when parent has been separated long-term)
In re B.O.A., 372 N.C. 372 (2019) (procedural framework for termination and sufficiency of findings)
In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1 (2019) (adjudication of neglect requires current circumstances showing substantial risk to the child)
In re Y.Y.E.T., 205 N.C. App. 120 (2010) (termination affirmed where parents gave inconsistent accounts and concealed perpetrator, supporting concealment inference)