235 N.C. App. 69
N.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Juveniles born in 2007, involved with DSS in NC since 2011 due to parental domestic violence and custody disputes.
- DSS substantiated neglect in 2013 based on injurious environment and parental conflict impacting the juveniles.
- DSS petitions filed June–July 2013; adjudication hearing held August 29, 2013.
- Trial court found the juveniles neglected; disposition placed them with paternal grandmother and ordered respondent’s supervised visitation at her cost.
- Written orders mistakenly labeled the juveniles as both neglected and dependent; clerical error later identified.
- Disposition order references visitation in accordance with 2013 amendments to the Juvenile Code; on appeal, clerical correction requested regarding dependency finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction for adjudication | Respondent argues lack of adequate jurisdiction findings due to prior Kentucky case | Court found jurisdiction based on NC residence since 2011; 50A-201(a)(1) satisfied | Jurisdiction valid; findings sufficient to support jurisdiction |
| Whether the juveniles were properly adjudicated neglected and dependent | Neglect supported by domestic violence history and lack of in-home services | Arguments about neglect and dependency not supported by trial findings | Neglect affirmed; dependency to be remanded for clerical correction to reflect no dependent finding |
| Clerical error in adjudication order regarding dependency | Box labeled dependent was checked in error | No substantive basis for dependency; clerical error probable | Remand to correct adjudication order to reflect neglect only, no dependency |
| Authority to require respondent to pay costs of supervised visitation | Code allows visitation conditions and costs; respondent argued lack of ability findings | Statute silent on ability-to-pay findings for visitation costs; can review costs later | Visitation costs affirmed; no required ability-to-pay finding; opportunity for 90-day review or modification exists |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brode, 151 N.C. App. 690, 566 S.E.2d 858 (2002) (N.C. App. 2002) (UCCJEA jurisdiction requirements guidance)
- In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 539 S.E.2d 362 (2000) (N.C. App. 2000) (Clear-and-convincing standard in neglect adjudications)
- In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 491 S.E.2d 672 (1997) (N.C. App. 1997) (Findings and evidentiary standard in non-jury neglect cases)
- In re B.M., 183 N.C. App. 84, 643 S.E.2d 644 (2007) (N.C. App. 2007) (Domestic violence history supports neglect finding)
- Romulus v. Romulus, 216 N.C. App. 28, 715 S.E.2d 889 (2011) (N.C. App. 2011) (Statutory interpretation and review standards for visitation)