IN RE: M.D.S.T., Wilkes County
Minor Child. No. 03 J 163
Rebekah W. Davis, for respondent-appellant.
Paul W. Freeman, Jr., for petitioner-appellee.
Tracie M. Jordan, for Guardian ad Litem-appellee.
ELMORE, Judge.
C.T. (respondent), mother of the minor child M.D.S.T. (M.),
appeals from an order adjudicating M. a neglected juvenile and
placing him in the custody of the Wilkes County Department of
Social Services (DSS).
On 7 November 2003, DSS filed a juvenile petition seeking
temporary custody of M. on grounds of neglect. The petition
alleged that M. lived in an environment injurious to his welfare,
in that respondent had threatened to kill herself and the child on
or about 28 October 2003.
On 23 December 2003, the district court adjudicated M. a
neglected juvenile, finding that respondent failed to provide him
with proper care and supervision and placed him in an environmentinjurious to his welfare. Citing the testimony of respondent's
sister, T.T., the court found that respondent suffered from
depression after giving birth to M. and had been unable to bond
with him. Before DSS became involved in the case, respondent was
living with T.T. and relied upon her and others for M.'s care. The
court made additional findings that respondent “was physically and
emotionally abused by her mother while [she] was growing up[,]”
that she experienced three miscarriages before giving birth to M.,
and that she had been raped in 2002. Respondent was also fired
from her job in April of 2003, due to absences caused by her
pregnancy. The week before DSS received the report of neglect,
respondent threatened to give M. to the sister of the child's
putative father, who died on 3 November 2003. On the day DSS
received the report, respondent “stated to [T.T.] and one other
person that it would be better if she and the baby were dead.” A
doctor and social worker evaluated respondent and determined that
she was not subject to involuntary commitment, inasmuch as she did
not pose a threat of harm to herself or others. The evaluators
noted that T.T. and respondent's mother seemed “more worried about
[M.] being placed out of their respective homes than [respondent]
harming herself or others.”
In its 23 December 2003 disposition, the court vested DSS with
legal and physical custody of M., and authorized the child's
placement with T.T. or another suitable care giver. The court
ordered respondent to maintain regular visits with M., complete a
case plan developed by DSS, attend parenting classes, obtain apsychological evaluation and comply with its treatment
recommendations, find full employment within thirty days, and make
arrangements through DSS to begin paying child support.
A series of review orders and reports prepared by DSS and the
guardian ad litem detailed respondent's cooperation with DSS and
her successful completion of the case plan between March and
December of 2004. Throughout this period, M. was placed with T.T.
and thrived in her care. A report submitted to the court by the
guardian ad litem on 15 July 2004 noted that “[T.T.] wants to keep
and raise M.[,]” and that “[t]here seems to be a lot of animosity
between the sisters.” Following a successful trial placement in
which respondent demonstrated her ability to care for M., the court
returned the child to respondent's custody in an order entered 22
December 2004.
DSS briefly regained non-secure custody of M. on 29 June 2005,
after filing a petition accusing respondent of abuse and neglect.
However, M. was again returned to respondent's home when DSS
voluntarily dismissed the petition on 26 August 2005.
In April of 2006, respondent asked T.T. to keep M. while she
completed a week-long orientation for her new job as a certified
nursing assistant in Chapel Hill. Respondent was living in
Sanford, and T.T. was living in Rock Creek. The week before Easter,
T.T. met respondent in Greensboro to pick up M. Although
respondent visited M. at T.T.'s residence, she left the child with
T.T. into the summer, claiming she could not locate a sitter to
watch M. while she was at work. In June of 2006, T.T. expressed concern that she would not be
able to register M. for extracurricular activities or make
emergency medical decisions on his behalf, absent a formal
designation as his custodian. With respondent's consent, T.T.
asked her attorney to draft a “Custody Agreement” which vested her
with “immediate physical custody of M.,” authorized her to “obtain
any and all medical care for said child,” and otherwise to act “in
loco parentis” without prior court permission. The agreement
allowed respondent to visit M. “during such times as the parties
mutually agree upon.” It further provided that the parties would
alternate claiming M. as a dependent on their income tax returns.
Respondent and T.T. signed the private “Custody Agreement” before
a notary on 5 June 2006. After signing the agreement, respondent
continued to visit M. at T.T.'s home on weekends and to telephone
him during the week.
On 10 August 2006, DSS filed a petition alleging that M. was
a neglected juvenile after respondent tried to take the child back
from T.T. against T.T.'s will on 9 August 2006. The petition
claimed that respondent attempted to forcibly remove the child from
T.T.'s home, assaulting T.T. and “caus[ing] minor injury to the
child.” The court granted non-secure custody of the child to DSS
on 10 August 2006, and the child remained in DSS custody after the
seven-day hearing on 14 August 2006. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
506(a) (2005).
The district court held a hearing on DSS's petition on 28
August and 5 September 2006, receiving testimony from, inter alia,the DSS social worker, respondent, and T.T. The court adjudicated
M. a neglected juvenile in an order entered 18 September 2006. In
its findings of fact, the court reviewed respondent's prior
involvement with DSS and the history of M.'s placements with T.T.
The court characterized the “Custody Agreement” executed by T.T.
and respondent on 5 June 2006, as follows:
. . . [B]ecause [T.T.] had concerns regarding
her ability to obtain medical services and
other needed services for M., . . . [she]
desired that a written Custody Agreement be
prepared and executed by herself and
[respondent]. . . . Pursuant to the terms of
this agreement, [T.T.] was given the immediate
physical custody of the child, with the
provision that the child was to reside
primarily with [T.T.] at her residence . . . .
[T.T.] had her attorney, Gregory Luck, prepare
this Agreement. The Agreement does not have
an ending date.
Based on the participants' conflicting accounts of the incident on
9 August 2006, the court made the following findings of fact:
10. On August 9, 2006, [respondent] came to
the residence of her sister without prior
notice . . . with the intention of taking M.
away with her. [T.T.] refused to allow
[respondent] to take M., resulting in
[respondent] reaching for the child and an
altercation ensuing. During the altercation,
M. was removed to an adjoining bedroom. M.
received a bruise during the altercation,
however, it is not clear how [he] received the
bruise but it is apparent that the bruise was
not present before the altercation.
11. During this altercation, [respondent] hit
her sister, held her around the neck, and
threatened to kill her.
12. . . . Tammy, (a friend of the mother's)
came close enough to the house so that she
could see part of the altercation. At the
time that Tammy came close to the home, M. was
at the door screaming. The fight between themother and her sister continued for
approximately 30 to 40 minutes. At some point
during the altercation, [T.T.] retrieved a
baseball bat, however, no one was hit with the
bat.
13. The combatants' relatives called law
enforcement as a result of this altercation.
[T.T.] went to her grandmother's home, which
was nearby, and exhibited redness and marks
about her body.
14. At some point after the altercation,
[respondent] . . . threatened to reveal to
[T.T.'s son,] that he was an adopted child
when [he] was unaware of this fact.
15. As a result of the altercation, [T.T.]
had bruises on her arms, neck, and legs.
[Respondent] also had marks.
16. Immediately after the altercation, M. was
“all to pieces.” However, M. did not require
medical attention. . . .
The court further noted that respondent was employed as a third-
shift certified nursing assistant and “ha[d] a nice, well furnished
home[,]” but that she also “seem[ed] pleased with the care [M.] was
receiving from T.T. and did not consider M. to be in danger while
in the aunt's care.” Based on its findings, the court concluded,
inter alia:
2. The written “Custody Agreement” could be
revoked by [respondent] at any time.
3. . . . [Respondent] created an environment
injurious to the child's welfare by trying to
forcibly remove him from the aunt's house.
[Respondent] should have resorted to the Court
system due to the child not being in imminent
danger.
4. It should have been obvious to
[respondent] that a fight would break out if
she attempted to forcibly remove M. from
[T.T's] home.
5. The Petitioner has shown by clear and
convincing evidence that [M.] is a neglected
juvenile as that term is defined by G.S.§7B-
101, in that [respondent] created an
environment injurious to the child's welfare
at the time that the mother initiated the
altercation with her sister.
The court awarded DSS legal and physical custody of M. and granted
the department “the authority to place said child, including
continuing the child['s] placement with his aunt[.]” Respondent
filed timely notice of appeal from the order.
On appeal, respondent challenges the court's conclusion that
she created an environment injurious to M.'s welfare, such that he
was a neglected juvenile within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-101(15). She asserts that the “isolated occurrence” of 9 August
2006, in what had become an emotionally charged custody dispute
with her sister, did not meet the statutory definition of neglect.
Respondent avers both that the court's findings of fact did not
support the adjudication of neglect, and that DSS did not produce
clear and convincing evidence of neglect.
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805, the petitioner has the burden
of proving the existence of neglect by clear and convincing
evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805 (2005). On appeal, this Court
is bound by the district court's findings of fact if they are
“supported by clear and convincing competent evidence[,]” In re
Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 511, 491 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1997), or if
“no exception is taken” to an individual finding by the appellant,
Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991).
Therefore, our task in reviewing an adjudication of neglect is todetermine (1) whether the findings properly contested by respondent
are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the
findings of fact support the conclusions of law. In re Gleisner,
141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A determination that a
child is a neglected juvenile under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) is
a conclusion of law. In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 283, 582 S.E.2d
255, 258 (2003) (citations omitted).
The Juvenile Code defines a neglected juvenile, in pertinent
part, as:
[a] juvenile who does not receive proper care,
supervision, or discipline from the juvenile's
parent . . . or who lives in an environment
injurious to the juvenile's welfare . . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2005). Moreover, to support an
adjudication of neglect, our courts have “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.'”
Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283, 582 S.E.2d at 258 (quoting In re Safriet,
112 N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-02 (1993) (additional
citations omitted)); see also Powers v. Powers, 130 N.C. App. 37,
43, 502 S.E.2d 398, 402, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 530, 526
S.E.2d 180 (1998) (upholding adjudication of neglect based on
findings that the respondent “has driven an automobile while
impaired due to alcohol and while her minor children were
passengers, that she becomes intoxicated at home to the point of
literally falling down and becoming unable to care for her youngerchildren, and that her drinking has contributed to the emotional
problems from which the older children suffer”). Our Supreme Court
recognized that “not every act of negligence on the part of parents
or other care givers constitutes 'neglect' under the law and
results in a 'neglected juvenile.' Stumbo, 357 N.C. at 283, 582
S.E.2d at 258. Rather, we must assess on “a case-by-case basis”
the actual risk to the child's welfare created by the parent's
conduct. In re L.T.R., __ N.C. App. __, __, 639 S.E.2d 122, 127
(2007) (citing Speagle v. Seitz, 354 N.C. 525, 531, 557 S.E.2d 83,
86 (2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 923, 153 L. Ed. 2d 778 (2002)).
“[T]he determinative factors are the circumstances and conditions
surrounding the child, not the fault or culpability of the parent.”
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109, 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984).
While we do not condone respondent's actions after she was
denied access to her son on 9 August 2006, we hold that the
incident described in the district court's findings of fact was
insufficient to render M. a neglected juvenile within the
definition of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15). The evidence showed
that M. was present during the initial part of the altercation,
that he was crying and upset, and that he sustained “a small bruise
on his back” before being taken to a bedroom by T.T.'s nine-year-
old son, Zane. Although the sisters escalated their dispute into
a protracted “wrestling match,” these actions occurred after M. had
been taken out of harm's way. As found by the trial court, both
respondent and T.T. received marks and bruises during the episode
but were not seriously injured. We note that T.T.'s partner, CandyCaldwell, testified that she and T.T. went shopping after T.T.'s
altercation with respondent.
Without question, the exposure of a child to violent behavior
can constitute neglect. However, we do not believe that the fight
between respondent and T.T. on 9 August 2006, standing alone, was
of sufficient gravity to show that M. “live[d] in an environment
injurious to [his] welfare” or was otherwise neglected. This is
not a case involving an intentional act of violence toward the
child or of a home environment permeated with domestic violence or
other hazardous activity. See In re T.M., __ N.C. App. __, __, 638
S.E.2d 236, 241 (2006) (upholding adjudication of neglect where
findings showed the juvenile's “exposure to an environment of
violence, including respondent's prior abusive relationship with
the first boyfriend, respondent's inability to abide by the safety
agreements designed to insulate her child from domestic abuse,
physical abuse by [the second boyfriend] and respondent, [and] DSS'
observations of bruising on [the juvenile]”); In re K.D., __ N.C.
App. __, __, 631 S.E.2d 150, 155 (2006) (upholding adjudication of
neglect based on respondent-mother's “struggles with parenting
skills, domestic violence, and anger management, as well as her
unstable housing situation”); Helms, 127 N.C. App. at 512, 491
S.E.2d at 676 (upholding adjudication of neglect where the
respondent-mother, inter alia, “placed [the child] at substantial
risk through repeated exposure to violent individuals” and an
environment that “involved drugs, violence, and attempted sexual
assault”). Moreover, the fact that the court authorized M.'scontinued placement with T.T. reflects that respondent acted
responsibly in placing the child with her sister when she was
unable to find appropriate child care closer to her own residence.
We further note the lack of any evidence or finding that respondent
was unprepared to resume physical custody of the child when she
sought to take him back from T.T.. Inasmuch as the court relied
solely on the 9 August 2006 incident in adjudicating M. a neglected
juvenile, we vacate the order.
In light of our holding, we need not address respondent's
challenges to the court's individual findings of fact or to its
disposition.
Vacated.
Judges BRYANT and CALABRIA concur.
Report per 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***