In re: T.G., 244 N.C. App. 398

Background

Tanya (b. 2005) lived in North Carolina with parents/grandparents until Nov 2013, then lived in South Carolina with respondent (father) and others; returned to NC in Sept–Oct 2014 when grandparents removed her from South Carolina to Greene County, NC.
Greene County DSS filed a juvenile petition (Oct 16, 2014) alleging Tanya was neglected and dependent; nonsecure custody awarded to DSS and Tanya placed with grandparents.
At an Oct 21, 2014 hearing the trial court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding sufficient North Carolina connections and/or emergency jurisdiction; custody continued with DSS.
Adjudication and dispositional hearings occurred Feb–Mar 2015; the court adjudicated Tanya neglected and dependent, continued DSS custody and placement with grandparents, and ordered reunification steps for respondent (employment, domestic violence assessment, etc.).
On appeal the father challenged (1) jurisdiction (UCCJEA/emergency jurisdiction), (2) due process re: use of out-of-state evidence/witnesses, (3) the neglect adjudication, (4) the dependency adjudication, and (5) aspects of the dispositional order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Jurisdiction under UCCJEA	NC had significant-connection jurisdiction because child/parents/grandparents had strong NC ties and substantial evidence was in NC	Trial court erred: lacked emergency jurisdiction; child had been neglected in SC so NC lacks authority	Affirmed: NC had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §50A-201(a)(2) (significant-connection); no need to decide emergency basis
Use of out-of-state evidence / due process	Evidence about events in SC relevant to child’s welfare; trial procedures permitted hearsay at dispositional stage	Due process violated because father couldn’t subpoena SC witnesses and might be judged by NC standards for acts in SC	Not reached on constitutional grounds (issue not raised below); court rejects fairness argument on facts — no meritorious conflict in standards
Adjudication of neglect	DSS: Tanya lacked proper care/supervision; exposed to sexualized contact, substance use, and unstable caregiving	Father: incidents (e.g., child-to-child contact) insufficient to prove neglect	Affirmed: findings (exposure to inappropriate sexual contact, adults using marijuana, being passed among caregivers) support neglect under statute and clear-and-convincing standard
Adjudication of dependency	DSS: Father unable to provide care; no appropriate alternative care at time of petition	Father: trial record lacks findings that he was unable to provide care or that alternatives were unavailable	Reversed as to dependency: court failed to make required findings on both prongs (parental inability and lack of alternatives)
Dispositional orders (employment, DV assessment)	Orders remedial and tied to conditions that contributed to adjudication (father unemployed; history of domestic violence)	Father argued court exceeded authority by ordering employment and DV assessment without nexus to adjudication	Affirmed: dispositional conditions allowed where record (petition/addendum) shows nexus between ordered steps and conditions leading to removal/or adjudication

Key Cases Cited

In re H.L.A., 184 N.C. App. 381 (clear error review of juvenile jurisdiction and related issues)
In re K.U., 208 N.C. App. 128 (standards for statutory jurisdiction and de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343 (Juvenile Code: subject-matter jurisdiction established by statute)
In re C.M., 198 N.C. App. 53 (requirement of impairment or substantial risk to adjudicate neglect)
In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423 (elements required for dependency adjudication: parental inability and absence of alternatives)
In re B.M., 183 N.C. App. 84 (necessity of findings addressing both dependency prongs)
In re B.W., 190 N.C. App. 328 (standard of review for dispositional orders and permissible remedial conditions)