In re M.K. (I)
241 N.C. App. 467
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- YFS became involved after a CPS referral on 10 Aug 2012 alleging domestic violence; investigation showed a 20-year pattern of DV and that children witnessed incidents.
- A second DV incident on 29 Sept 2013 led to a juvenile petition filed on 8 Oct 2013; the mother sought a protective order and then nonsecure custody.
- Before the petition, the mother cooperated, but the family disappeared after filing and the nonsecure custody order was entered.
- Following a hearing, the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and ordered YFS to retain custody and continue locating the family; Respondent-father appeals.
- Children were aged 17, 12, 8, and 7 at adjudication, and the court’s disposition kept them in YFS custody; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court findings of fact were properly developed | Kemp argues many findings are verbatim petition allegations. | Kemp contends findings lack necessary adjudicated, ultimate facts. | Yes; but sufficient core facts exist to support neglect finding. |
| Whether finding 12 supports neglect given bruising evidence | Kemp contends bruising was not shown as severe. | YFS shows bruising; can infer severity. | Supported by evidence; court can infer severity from record. |
| Whether finding 13 shows M.K. (I) witnessed DV | Kemp asserts only M.K. (II) witnessed violence. | Police report places M.K. (I) in room during incident. | Supported by evidence; M.K. (I) witnessed the event. |
| Whether finding 24 adequately reflects DV impact and law application | Kemp argues statements about law are improper conclusions. | Findings reflect law and facts; DV exposure impacts children. | Evidence supports finding; court did not misapply law. |
| Whether finding 25 properly articulates injury from environment | Kemp claims as a conclusion, not fact. | Court properly links environment to neglect standard. | Treatable as conclusion; supports neglect finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Harton, 156 N.C.App. 655 (N.C. App. 2003) (require explicit findings beyond petition recitals)
- In re O.W., 164 N.C.App. 699 (N.C. App. 2004) (findings must be specific ultimate facts to support law)
- In re McCabe, 157 N.C.App. 673 (N.C. App. 2003) (findings must be reconciled with evidence; not mere recitation)
- In re J.S.L., 177 N.C.App. 151 (N.C. App. 2006) (de novo review of conclusions of law; findings reviewed for error)
- State v. Barlow, 102 N.C.App. 71 (N.C. App. 1991) (court may review for not misapprehending law)