809 S.E.2d 579
N.C.2018Background
- Mother (respondent) has a long history of violent relationships; children witnessed or were caught in domestic violence leading to involvement with Mecklenburg County YFS.
- Three oldest children entered YFS custody in February 2010 after repeated refusal of services and minimization of violence by mother.
- In June 2012, after reinstating a relationship with E.G., Sr., the mother placed an infant (E.G., Jr.) in a dangerous situation; the infant suffered severe skull fractures and life-threatening injuries; mother delayed calling 911 for over two hours.
- Mother’s parental rights to six previous children were terminated in April 2014 based largely on her failure to change the pattern of domestic violence and instability.
- At the neglect adjudication for J.A.M., the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother “failed to acknowledge her role” in the prior children entering custody and in the termination of her parental rights.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the mother’s vague concessions about past "bad decisions" contradicted the trial court’s finding; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial-court findings that mother failed to acknowledge her role are supported by clear and convincing evidence | YFS/Guardian: Trial court’s factual finding is supported by substantial, clear and convincing evidence and is conclusive on appeal | Mother: Her vague admissions of "bad decisions" show she acknowledged past wrongdoing, contradicting the trial-court finding | Supreme Court: Trial-court finding was supported by clear and convincing competent evidence and is conclusive; Court of Appeals misapplied standard of review |
| Proper standard of appellate review in non-jury neglect adjudications | Appellant: Appellate courts must defer to trial-court factual findings if supported by some evidence | Appellee: Where record contains contrary evidence, appellate court may reverse | Supreme Court: Confirms deference—findings supported by clear and convincing evidence are conclusive even if some contrary evidence exists |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.G., [citation="186 N.C. App. 1, 650 S.E.2d 45"] (2007) (trial-court findings supported by clear and convincing competent evidence are conclusive on appeal)
- In re Helms, [citation="127 N.C. App. 505, 491 S.E.2d 672"] (1997) (same principle of deference to trial-court factual findings)
- In re Montgomery, [citation="311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246"] (1984) (appellate courts bound by trial-court findings where some evidence supports them, even if evidence could support contrary findings)