372 N.C. 1
N.C.2019Background
- J.A.M., born Jan 2016, was the subject of a juvenile petition filed 29 Feb 2016 alleging she was unsafe due to both parents’ histories; district court adjudicated J.A.M. neglected on 30 Mar 2016.
- Respondent-mother had long-term YFS involvement dating to 2007, multiple referrals (12 total, ~11 for domestic violence), and previously had parental rights to six older children terminated in Apr 2014 after a child suffered life-threatening injuries while in the care of the child’s father.
- Evidence at the 2016 hearing included prior termination and adjudication orders, respondent-father’s criminal convictions for assault on a female, and testimony from a social-work supervisor that both parents declined services and respondent-mother refused to engage in further YFS services.
- Respondent-mother testified she believed her rights were terminated solely because a father abused a child, denied having a role in that harm, claimed she had completed services, and acknowledged she knew “warning signs” of domestic violence but did not ask respondent-father about past assault charges.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that J.A.M. lived in an environment injurious to her welfare because parents had histories of domestic violence and abused/neglected other children, respondent-mother denied need for services, failed to acknowledge her role in earlier children’s removal, and was involved with a father with a history of domestic violence.
- Procedurally: Court of Appeals initially reversed (2016); NC Supreme Court remanded for correct standard (2018); on remand Court of Appeals affirmed (2018) over a dissent; Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ affirmance (2019).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (YFS) | Respondent's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s findings supported adjudication of J.A.M. as neglected | Trial court’s findings—mother’s refusal of services, failure to acknowledge role in prior terminations, and relationship with a man with domestic-violence history—plus prior records, show present substantial risk to the infant | Prior, closed cases involving other children cannot alone support neglect; intervening years and lack of direct evidence of present risk on these facts mean adjudication unsupported | Affirmed: findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and included present risk factors beyond historical cases, so adjudication stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.G., 186 N.C. App. 1, 650 S.E.2d 45 (2007) (trial court findings supported by clear and convincing evidence are conclusive on appeal)
- In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 316 S.E.2d 246 (1984) (appellate courts bound by trial court findings when some evidence supports them)
- In re A.K., 360 N.C. 449, 628 S.E.2d 753 (2006) (prior neglect adjudication not dispositive; weight is within trial court’s discretion)
- In re Nicholson, 114 N.C. App. 91, 440 S.E.2d 852 (1994) (trial judge discretion in weighing prior adjudications)
- In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 582 S.E.2d 255 (2003) (neglect requires physical/mental/emotional impairment or substantial risk thereof)
- In re Safriet, 112 N.C. App. 747, 436 S.E.2d 898 (1993) (same principle on required risk/impairment)
- In re McLean, 135 N.C. App. 387, 521 S.E.2d 121 (1999) (affirming neglect adjudication for an infant based on predictive risk from parents’ failure to correct conditions that harmed a sibling)