IN THE MATTER OF:
C.B. Cumberland County
B.B. Nos. 06 JA 157-158
John F. Campbell, for Cumberland County Department of Social
Services.
Susan J. Hall, for respondent-appellee Ann Prince.
Brannon Strickland, PLLC, by Robin E. Strickland, for the
appellant.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Thurman B. (“Thurman”) appeals from an order adjudicating C.B.
(“C.B.”) and B.B. (“B.B.”) (collectively “the minor children”)
dependent and placing them in the custody of Ann P. (“Ann”), their
paternal grandmother. We affirm.
On 1 January 2006, Thurman shot the mother of the minor
children in the presence of one of the children. The mother died
from her injuries just over two weeks later, on 16 January 2006.
Thurman was arrested and charged with murder. While Thurman was
incarcerated and awaiting trial, Cumberland County Department of
Social Services (“D.S.S.”) filed a petition alleging the minorchildren dependent in that the children had no parent, guardian, or
custodian responsible for their care and supervision. Following a
hearing on 10 May 2006, Cumberland County District Court Judge John
W. Dickson entered an order adjudicating the minor children
dependent. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determined
that it was in the best interests of the minor children to place
them with Ann, their maternal grandmother. From that order,
Thurman appeals.
North Carolina General Statute . 7B-101(9) (2005) 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.” In a non-jury adjudication of dependency, the trial
court's findings of fact must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-805 (2005). This Court reviews the
trial court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are
supported by the findings of fact. In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App.
756, 561 S.E.2d 560, 566 (2002). In the dispositional phase, the
trial court considers the best interests of the child. N.C. Gen.
Stat. . 7B-903(a) (2005). This determination is reviewed for abuse
of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
court's decision is “manifestly unsupported by reason.” White v.
White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985). On appeal, Thurman initially argues the trial court failed to
make adequate findings of fact. He contends that the court
improperly recited the testimony of others rather than finding
facts independently. Our review of the record leads us to conclude
otherwise. The trial court found the following relevant facts:
4. The mother of the juveniles is D.P. and
she is deceased.
5. The respondent father is T.B.
. . .
7. That on 1/1/06 the respondent father shot
the mother of the juveniles in the presence of
one of the juveniles.
8. That subsequently on 1/16/06, the mother
died as a result of the gunshot wound
inflicted by the respondent father.
9. That the respondent father has been
charged with murder and is incarcerated.
10. That the respondent father is unable to
provide appropriate care for the juveniles and
failed to make appropriate childcare
arrangements prior to his incarceration.
Thurman argues that these findings are mere recitations of the
evidence and do not represent adequate findings supported by clear
and convincing evidence. We disagree. The findings, on their
face, are not mere recitations of the evidence but facts found upon
a consideration of the evidence. The facts were found upon
evidence that was largely unchallenged at the 10 May 2006
adjudication hearing.
At that hearing, the trial court heard from two witnesses.
B.B. testified that she was present when Thurman shot her mother,
and stated that she did not want to have any contact with Thurmanor his family. Edna Lee Burns (“Burns”), Thurman's sister,
testified that she was prepared to provide care for the children,
and that Thurman was willing to sign over custody of the children
to her. Thurman was present during the hearing but did not
testify.
Based on the testimony and documentary evidence, the court
found that Thurman had shot the mother of the minor children and
was subsequently incarcerated. There was no evidence to the
contrary, and thus this finding is supported by clear and
convincing evidence. The court further found that Thurman was
unable to properly care for the children and had failed to make
appropriate childcare arrangements prior to his incarceration. The
only evidence contradicting this finding is Burns' statement that
Thurman wanted her to have custody of the children. There was no
testimony that Thurman had made any legal or financial arrangements
for the minor children prior to his incarceration for shooting
their mother. As such, the trial court's findings were supported
by clear and convincing evidence that Thurman had failed to make
appropriate childcare arrangements.
Thurman next challenges the dispositional order, which
provides that he is to have no contact with the minor children.
Thurman argues that the findings do not support this conclusion
since he has not been charged with an offense against either child,
and has not been convicted of killing their mother. We find this
argument unavailing. The trial court heard testimony from B.B.
that Thurman shot her mother in front of her, and that B.B. did notwant to maintain any contact with him. Given this testimony, as
well as Thurman's status as a prisoner awaiting trial for shooting
the minor children's mother, we cannot conclude the trial court's
findings do not support its conclusions, or that the trial court
erred by concluding that it is in the best interests of the
children that they have no contact with Thurman.
Affirmed.
Judges McCULLOUGH and STROUD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***