IN THE MATTER OF: Burke County
No. 06 J 38
C.P.A.
Burke County Department of Social Services, by Stephen M.
Schoeberle for petitioner-appellee.
Winifred H. Dillon, for respondent-appellant.
Mary R. McKay, for Guardian ad Litem.
LEVINSON, Judge.
Respondent-mother
appeals from
adjudication and disposition
orders concluding her infant son, C.P.A., was neglected and
dependent, and ceasing reunification efforts.
We affirm.
The Burke County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a
juvenile petition on 5 April 2006 alleging that C.P.A. was: (1)
abused because he was born with drugs in his system, and (2)
neglected
because of respondent-mother's history of substance abuse
and respondent's positive drug test when C.P.A. was born. DSS took
non-secure custody of C.P.A. the next day. DSS subsequently
amended its juvenile petition to delete the abuse allegation and
add the allegation that C.P.A. was dependent because respondent-mother's five other minor children were not in her custody “due to
her substance abuse and criminal activity.”
The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition. After
DSS and respondent-mother presented evidence, the trial court
entered an adjudication order with the following findings of fact:
1. In the summer of last year, [respondent]
was at Keller's Garage in Glen Alpine, North
Carolina, with her uncle, a known drug user.
[Respondent] was also there. The adults then
went into a room at the garage known as the
“drug room” and they returned later behaving
in a noticeably changed manner.
2. In October of last year, at a time that
[respondent] was clearly pregnant with the
juvenile who was born on April 2, 2006, Ms.
[B] witnessed [respondent] smoke something in
a pipe that smelled “like ammonia”.
3. On at least one occasion while she was
pregnant with the juvenile, [respondent]
consumed illegal substances.
4. [Respondent] frequents Keller's Garage, an
establishment where illegal drugs are known to
be sold and consumed. Recently, the Burke
County Narcotics Task Force raided that
establishment and charged the proprietor,
Robert Blake Keller, with conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine. [Respondent]
continues her association with Mr. Keller.
5. [The alleged father] was served with a
summons and the original petition in this
matter by certified mail on April 12, 2006,
and he was served with a copy of the amended
petition by first class mail on June 1, 2006.
He is not present in court. [Respondent]
testified that [he] is heavily involved with
methamphetamine, although she states that he
wasn't involved with the drug when she
conceived the juvenile with him approximately
in early July of 2005. Additionally, [the
alleged father] suffers from tuberculosis and
is unable to care for the juvenile.
6. [Respondent] received minimal prenatal care
while pregnant with the juvenile. She had at
least one doctor's visit, as she did have an
ultrasound, but she did not have a regular
obstetrician. Although she is a resident of
Burke County, she delivered the juvenile at
Caldwell Memorial Hospital in Caldwell County,
on April 2, 2006, out of fear that the
petitioner would take nonsecure custody of the
juvenile. She has 5 other children under the
age of 18, none of whom reside with her, due
to her inability to care for them. 3 of those
children reside with [respondent's] sister in
Shelby, and the other 2 reside with
[respondent's] sister in Tennessee. She has
not suggested an appropriate alternative
childcare arrangement for this juvenile.
7. [Respondent's] current husband and
therefore the juvenile's legal father, was
served with a summons and the original
petition by certified mail on April 13, 2006.
He has told the Department that he would not
participate in this proceeding, as he knows
that he is not the juvenile's biological
father.
8. The original petition was filed on April
5, 2006, and the amended petition was filed on
May 25, 2006. This hearing is taking place
64 days after the filing of the original
petition, 4 days later than the 60 days
required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-801(c). However,
the delay has been reasonable, as [respondent]
filed a discovery motion on May 24, 2006, that
the Court heard today. The intervening
continuances have been with [respondent's]
consent.
The trial court concluded that C.P.A. was a neglected and
dependent juvenile
.
The trial court ordered that disposition be
continued until 6 July 2006 to provide respondent-mother time to
file written objections to DSS and Guardian Ad Litem reports.
The
trial court also ordered respondent-mother to submit to drug
testing, and based upon negative drug tests, ordered respondent-mother to have supervised visitation with C.P.A. pending
disposition.
After hearing testimony at the disposition hearing, the trial
court entered its order. The trial court made additional findings
of fact that respondent-mother: (1) failed to make written
objections due to her failure to maintain contact with her
attorney, (2) failed to report for drug testing as the court
ordered, and (3) stated that she “would not cooperate with the
Department and would not comply with court-ordered directives.”
The trial court concluded that reunification was not in the best
interests of the juvenile and that reunification efforts should
cease. Respondent-mother appeals.
On appeal, respondent makes eight assignments of error but
presents argument and authority for only one of these assignments
in her brief. The assignments of error for which no argument is
presented are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
Respondent's remaining assignment of error is that the trial
court's conclusion that C.P.A. was a neglected and dependent
juvenile is not supported by its findings of fact.
“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 evidence supports contrary findings.'" In re K.D., __ N.C.
App. __, __, 631 S.E.2d 150, 154 (2006) (quoting In re Helms, 127
N.C. App. 505, 511, 491 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1997)). Where no
exception is taken to findings of fact, they are presumed to besupported by clear and convincing evidence and are, therefore,
binding upon appeal. In re J.D.S., 170 N.C. App. 244, 252-53, 612
S.E.2d 350, 355, cert. denied, 360 N.C. 64, 623 S.E.2d 584 (2005).
As noted above, respondent-mother has challenged the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the findings of fact and they are therefore
binding on this Court.
Respondent-mother first argues that the trial court erred in
concluding C.P.A. is a neglected juvenile because the trial court
failed to find a threat of future harm to C.P.A.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2005) defines a neglected
juvenile as “[a] juvenile who does not receive proper care,
supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's parent[.]” “[T]his
Court has consistently required that there be some physical,
mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile or a substantial
risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide
'proper care, supervision, or discipline.'” In re Safriet, 112
N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-02 (1993)(quoting In re
Thompson, 64 N.C. App. 95, 101, 306 S.E.2d 792, 796 (1983)).
Here, the findings of fact reveal that respondent-mother used
drugs while she was pregnant with C.P.A., and continued to frequent
establishments where illegal drugs were used and sold. In
addition, respondent has five (5) other children under the age of
eighteen (18) who do not reside with her because of her inability
to care for them.
On this record, considering all of the trial
court's findings of fact, we conclude that the trial court'sconclusion of law that C.P.A. is a neglected juvenile was not in
error.
Respondent-mother also argues that the trial court erred in
concluding C.P.A. is a dependent child because the trial court
failed to find that respondent-mother was incapable of caring for
C.P.A. A dependent juvenile is one who is:
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) (2005). Here, the trial court found
that respondent-mother consumed illegal drugs, that she received
minimal prenatal care, and that she refused to cooperate with DSS
and would not abide by court-ordered directives. Further, the
court found that respondent-mother was incapable of properly caring
for any of her children. The trial court also found that the
putative father is unable to care for the juvenile and that the
juvenile's legal father is not participating in the proceedings.
Finally, the trial court found respondent-mother lacked an
appropriate alternative child care arrangement. We conclude that
the trial court did not err by concluding that C.P.A. is a
dependent juvenile.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McCullough concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***