Appeal by Respondent from order entered 6 May 2004 by Judge
Susan Burch in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court
of Appeals 8 March 2005.
Michael K. Newby, for petitioner-appellee.
Susan J. Hall, for respondent-appellant.
WYNN, Judge.
Under North Carolina law, a child whose physical or emotional
condition has been or is in danger of becoming impaired as a result
of the failure of the parent or guardian to exercise that degree of
care consistent with the normative standards imposed upon parents
by society may be considered neglected. In re Thompson, 64 N.C.
App. 95, 99-100, 306 S.E.2d 792, 794-95 (1983). In this appeal,
Respondent contends, inter alia, that the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding as a matter of law that the child in this
matter was neglected. Because Respondent does not assign error to
the findings of fact and those findings support the conclusion that
the child was neglected, we uphold the trial court's order.
S.D., whose mother is deceased, lived with Respondent, hermaternal aunt, and Respondent's husband. The record reflects that,
on 31 December 2003, the Guilford County Department of Social
Services (DSS) received a report that S.D. had been beaten with a
belt and forced to strip off her clothes by Respondent's husband.
The report also alleged that S.D. had previously been beaten by
Respondent and her husband.
On 2 January 2004, Kimberly Miles of DSS interviewed S.D., who
confirmed the allegations in the report. Ms. Miles also
interviewed Respondent, who was aware of the allegations, and
Respondent's husband, who confirmed the allegations. Ms. Miles
discovered previous substantiations of sex abuse by Respondent's
husband involving another female child in 2001, as well as
substantiations of lack of supervision and neglect.
On 5 January 2004, Ms. Miles and another DSS representative
met with Respondent and her husband to implement a safety plan.
The plan called for S.D. to reside with her great-grandmother at
least until DSS completed its investigation. Respondent and her
husband were instructed not to contact S.D. during that time.
However, at the hearing, Ms. Miles testified that in contravention
of the plan, Respondent and her husband contacted S.D. _ an
allegation Respondent denied.
On 15 January 2004, DSS filed a petition alleging that S.D.
was neglected and dependent. In a contested hearing, Respondent
acknowledged that the allegations about her husband's conduct
toward S.D. were true but argued that the conduct did not cause
concern. The trial court found S.D. to be neglected and dependent,and Respondent appealed.
Preliminarily, we note that Respondent has not assigned error
to any of the trial court's findings of fact. “[W]hen counsel
fails to except to findings of fact, they are deemed supported by
competent evidence and are conclusive on appeal.”
In re Pierce, 67
N.C. App. 257, 259, 312 S.E.2d 900, 902 (1984) (citation omitted);
In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533, 540, 577 S.E.2d 421, 426 (2003)
(“Findings of fact to which a respondent did not object are
conclusive on appeal.” (citation omitted)). If those findings of
fact support the trial court's conclusions of law, the trial
court's order should be affirmed.
In re Everette, 133 N.C. App.
84, 85, 514 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1999) (where the findings of fact
support the conclusions of law and the conclusions of law support
the judgment, the trial court's decision should be affirmed);
In re
Hughes, 74 N.C. App. 751, 759, 330 S.E.2d 213, 219 (1985) (“If the
conclusion of law is supported by findings of fact based on clear,
cogent and convincing evidence, the order appealed from should be
affirmed.”). We therefore look only to whether the trial court's
findings of fact support its conclusions of law.
On appeal, Respondent contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding as a matter of law that S.D. was
neglected.
North Carolina General Statute section 7B-101(15)
defines a neglected juvenile as:
A juvenile who does not receive proper care,
supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's
parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker; or
who . . . . lives in an environment injuriousto the juvenile's welfare . . .. In
determining whether a juvenile is a neglected
juvenile, it is relevant whether that juvenile
lives in a home where another juvenile has
died as a result of suspected abuse or neglect
or lives in a home where another juvenile has
been subjected to abuse or neglect by an adult
who regularly lives in the home.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2004). A child whose physical or
emotional condition has been or is in danger of becoming impaired
as a result of the failure of his or her parent or guardian to
exercise that degree of care consistent with the normative
standards imposed upon parents by society may be considered
neglected.
In re Thompson, 64 N.C. App. at 99-100, 306 S.E.2d at
794-95. Moreover, an individual's lack of concern for his/her
child is simply an alternate way of stating that the individual has
failed to exercise proper care, supervision, and discipline as to
that child,
i.e., that the child is neglected.
In re Williamson, 91
N.C. App. 668, 674-75, 373 S.E.2d 317, 320 (1988).
Here, the district court's findings of fact established that:
S.D.'s uncle[] had whipped her with a belt and
forced her to remove her clothing following
the beating as a form of punishment. Upon
inquiry he said he had her remove her clothes
in order to embarrass her and hurt her
feelings. [He] also had told the child that
if she continued misbehaving she would have to
undress in front of the family. DSS had
previously substantiated neglect on [S.D.'s
uncle] for sexual abuse involving another
female child. The Court determines not only
that this incident actually happened as
described, but that the caretaker, the
maternal aunt, knew about this the [sic]
incident prior to the investigation and did
not perceive any problem with this form of
discipline by her husband. Although
acknowledging that was his intention to hurt
the child's feelings, [Respondent] stated inCourt that while she would not have done it
(the stripping) herself, she understood why he
did it . . ..
The trial court's findings that Respondent's husband beat S.D. and
made her remove her clothing, that sexual abuse allegations against
Respondent's husband as to another female child had been
substantiated, and that Respondent knew of this conduct yet was not
concerned by it and found it justified, support the trial court's
conclusion that S.D. was neglected. These findings, which are
unchallenged by Respondent, support the conclusion that Respondent
failed to take proper care of S.D., failed to exercise proper
concern for S.D., and had S.D. living in an environment injurious
to S.D.'s welfare. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15). Accordingly, we
hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that S.D. was
a neglected juvenile.
Respondent next contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding as a matter of law that S.D. was
dependent.
North Carolina General Statute section 7B-101(9)
defines a dependent juvenile as:
A juvenile in need of assistance or placement
because the juvenile has no parent, guardian,
or custodian responsible for the juvenile's
care or supervision or whose parent, guardian,
or custodian is unable to provide for the care
or supervision and lacks an appropriate
alternative child care arrangement.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9) (2004).
Here, the district court's findings of fact established that:
At the time the Petition was filed the child
had been living at the home of her maternal
aunt and uncle since she was one because her
mother had died. The biological father of thechild had been unsuccessful in previous
attempts to obtain custody of her. Therefore,
the Court also finds that the juvenile is
dependent because there is no appropriate
legal custodian authorized to make decisions
on her behalf.
Here, the trial court's findings that S.D.'s mother was dead, that
her father failed to get custody of her, and that Respondent had
neglected her support the trial court's conclusion that S.D. was a
dependent juvenile. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9). Since Respondent
did not challenge these findings, we must uphold the trial court's
conclusion that S.D. was a dependent juvenile.
Respondent failed to argue her two remaining assignments of
error. They are therefore deemed abandoned.
See N.C. R. App. P.
28(a).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial
court.
Affirmed.
Judges TYSON and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***