IN RE: A.E., Beaufort County
A Minor Child. No. 03 J 82
Alice Anne Espenshade, for petitioner-appellee Beaufort County
Department of Social Services.
Edwin Hardy for respondent-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
On 17 November 2004, nunc pro tunc 27 October 2003,
an order
was entered granting temporary custody of A.E. to Brenda McGowan,
her paternal grandmother. On 7 November 2003, a petition was filed
by Beaufort County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) alleging
that A.E. was a sexually abused and neglected juvenile.
Specifically, DSS alleged that respondent's boyfriend, Roland
McSweeney, had improperly disciplined A.E. and had also sexually
abused A.E. while he bathed her.
The trial court held hearings on the matter and entered an
adjudication judgment and dispositional order on 2 August 2004.
The trial court found that McSweeney had “repeatedly inserted his
fingers into the child's vaginal opening, causing her pain. Shetold him to stop, but he continued. She informed her mother
[respondent] that Roland was 'touching her insides' and hurting
her, but mother did nothing, and Roland continued to bathe the
child each night.” The trial court additionally found that A.E.
had frequent bed-wetting accidents and that McSweeney had
inappropriately punished her for these accidents. McSweeney had on
one occasion denied A.E. access to a bathroom when she needed to
use it. He forced her to stand on a bed until she wet herself and
her bedclothes. He then shoved a “scrunchie” in her mouth and
refused to let her remove it. Respondent entered the room, removed
the scrunchie, and then left again, at which time McSweeney
replaced the scrunchie in A.E.'s mouth. The trial court concluded
there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence that A.E. was a
sexually abused and neglected child. Accordingly, the trial court
continued custody of A.E. with McGowan.
Respondent appeals.
Respondent argues there was insufficient evidence and findings
to support the trial court's adjudication that A.E. was a sexually
abused and neglected child.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the parties, we affirm. “'The allegations in a petition alleging
abuse, neglect, or dependency shall be proved by clear and
convincing evidence.'” In re J.A.G., _ N.C. App. _, _, 617 S.E.2d
325, 329 (2005)(quoting
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805 (2005)). “In a
non-jury adjudication of abuse, neglect, and dependency, 'the trial
court's findings of fact supported by clear and convincing
competent evidence are deemed conclusive, even where some evidencesupports contrary findings.'” In re P.M., 169 N.C. App. 423, 424,
610 S.E.2d 403, 404 (2005)
(quoting In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505,
511, 491 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1997)).
In the case sub judice, we conclude there was clear and
convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact,
and the court's findings support the conclusions of law and the
adjudication of abuse and neglect. A.E. testified that McSweeney
would bathe her at night, and that he would touch her “insides.”
Specifically, A.E. testified that he hurt her while washing her by
touching her “gina.” A.E. demonstrated on a doll for the trial
court what she meant by “gina” and showed how McSweeney would touch
her. A.E. then testified that she reported to her mother that
McSweeney was touching her “gina,” but he still kept giving her
baths and touching her. A.E. also testified that McSweeney “made
me not go to the bathroom” and as a result she urinated on herself,
that McSweeney would punish her by putting a scrunchie in her
mouth, that her mom would take it out, and that McSweeney would put
it back in. Based on this testimony, there was sufficient evidence
to support the trial court's findings of fact and it was within the
trial court's discretion to conclude that A.E. was sexually abused
and neglected. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***