IN RE: Caldwell County
M.K.M., C.R.M., and Nos. 00 JA 27
S.S.M. 01 JA 17
02 JA 01
Lauren Vaughan, for Caldwell County Department of Social
Services, petitioner-appellee.
Elizabeth M. Spillman,
for guardian ad Litem.
Terry F. Rose, for respondent-appellant-mother.
Mary McCullers Reece, for respondent-appellant-father.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Respondents mother and father (collectively, “the parents”)
appeal from an adjudication order that adjudicated the minor
children, M.K.M, C.R.M., and S.S.M., (collectively, “the minor
children”) neglected and a disposition order ending reunification
efforts and visitation between the parents and minor children.
The parents were licensed as foster parents in 2000 and
adopted two biological siblings, M.K.M. and C.R.M., in June 2001.
Approximately one year later, the parents adopted S.S.M., another
biological sibling of M.K.M. and C.R.M. In September 2004, C.R.M. attended preschool at the School for
Young Children (“the School”). The School's staff noticed various
marks and bruises on C.R.M., who told the staff his parents
inflicted the bruises. In January 2006, S.S.M. also began
attending the School, and she made similar comments. On 2 February
2006, S.S.M. came to the School with a small cut on her head and a
severe burn on her hand. After seeing these injuries, the School's
staff called the Caldwell Department of Social Services (“DSS”).
S.S.M. told the School's staff her injuries were inflicted by her
mother and also told them that C.R.M. was not in school because
their father had bruised C.R.M.'s leg.
The following day, the minor children's injuries were
evaluated in a Child Medical Evaluation at Mission Children's
Clinic. According to the evaluation, the bruises on C.R.M.'s leg
were intentionally inflicted injuries. The mother initially denied
any knowledge of the bruising, but on 10 February 2006, she
admitted the father had whipped C.R.M. with a belt. The father
also admitted he caused bruising by whipping C.R.M. with a belt.
On 27 February 2006, DSS filed petitions alleging that C.R.M.
and S.S.M. were abused, neglected and dependent juveniles, and that
M.K.M. was a neglected and dependent juvenile, as a result of
interviews DSS conducted with the minor children. During the
interview, M.K.M. described, in pertinent part, how the parents had
taped the hands and feet of C.R.M. and S.S.M., and left them home
alone in their room. She described how C.R.M. had lacerated his
lip by hopping from his room with taped feet and fell against aplanter. S.S.M. also suffered a severe burn to her hand, which the
mother said was the result of an accident with a curling iron.
S.S.M. made consistent statements indicating the mother had caused
the burn to her hand. When the children entered foster care, there
were concerns about their growth and development. C.R.M. was
nearly five years old and still wore size 2 Toddler clothing.
On 30 November 2006, the trial court adjudicated the minor
children neglected. On 7 March 2007, the trial court entered a
disposition order continuing custody with DSS and ceasing
reunification efforts and visitation with the parents. From the
trial court's adjudication and disposition orders, both parents
appealed.
I. The Mother's appeal
On appeal, the mother raises three issues: (i) the trial court
was without the authority to issue any disposition order as to the
minor children because the trial court never adjudged, decreed or
ordered the minor children neglected; (ii) the trial court erred in
concluding as a matter of law the minor children were neglected;
and (iii) the trial court erred in denying the mother's motion to
dismiss at the close of the evidence.
a. Adjudication and disposition orders
The mother first argues that the trial court was without
authority to issue the disposition order because the adjudication
order never adjudged, decreed or ordered the minor children
neglected. We disagree. N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-807(a)(2006) states in relevant part,
“[i]f the court finds that the allegations in the petition have
been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court shall so
state.” Furthermore, N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-807(b)(2006) requires,
“[t]he adjudicatory order shall be in writing and shall contain
appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
In the case sub judice, the trial court's adjudication order
states as follows, “the Court makes the following Findings of Fact,
which are found by the Court by clear[,] cogent and convincing
evidence.” After the court lists the findings of fact, the court
states, “BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH ARE
CLEAR, COGENT AND CONVINCING the Court concludes as a matter of law
as follows[.]” Under the conclusions of law, paragraphs numbered
5, 6, and 7 set forth each minor child, individually, as being
neglected. After the court states the seven conclusions of law,
the court then declares, “BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW it is hereby ordered that this matter shall
proceed to Disposition.”
The mother argues that because the trial court never adjudged,
decreed or ordered the minor children neglected, the parties are
left to assume that since the court concluded as a matter of law
the children were neglected, they were also adjudicated neglected.
The mother further argues parties should not be left to assume what
the court orders. However, there is no statutory requirement that
a trial court make its finding of abuse, neglect, or dependency
within the decretal portion of its order. The trial court entereda seven-page written adjudication order, containing twenty-eight
findings of fact and seven conclusions of law. The trial court
also declared that the findings of fact are found by the court by
“clear, cogent and convincing evidence.” Therefore, the trial
court fulfilled all necessary statutory requirements when it
entered the adjudication order.
Furthermore, the mother did not suffer any prejudice by the
trial court failing to adjudge, decree or order the minor children
neglected. The trial court listed twenty-eight findings of fact in
detail and clearly stated that its findings of fact were supported
by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The trial court further
listed in its conclusions of law that all three minor children were
neglected. It follows logically that since the trial court
concluded as a matter of law that the minor children were
neglected, the trial court would adjudicate and order the minor
children neglected. Moreover, because the court's findings of fact
were so detailed and the court stated the children were neglected
in its conclusions of law, the parties are not left to assume or
interpret what the trial court ordered.
Therefore, because the trial court satisfied all necessary
statutory requirements and the mother did not suffer any prejudice,
the adjudication order is valid. This assignment of error is
overruled.
b. Neglect The mother next contends the trial court erred in finding as
fact and concluding as a matter of law that the minor children were
neglected. We disagree.
“The allegations in a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or
dependency shall be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-805 (2006). “Clear and convincing evidence is
greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in
most civil cases.” In re A.K., 178 N.C. App. 727, 730, 637 S.E.2d
227, 229 (2006)(internal quotation omitted). “A proper review of
a trial court's finding of neglect entails a determination of (1)
whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing
evidence, and (2) whether the legal conclusions are supported by
the findings of fact.” In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539
S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000) (citations omitted). “In a non-jury neglect
adjudication, 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 Helms, 127 N.C.
App. 505, 511, 491 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1997).
The trial court's determination that the minor children were
neglected is a conclusion of law. “Our review of a trial court's
conclusions of law is limited to whether they are supported by the
findings of fact.” Id. A neglected juvenile is defined in part
as one who
does not receive proper care, supervision, or
discipline from the juvenile's parent,
guardian, custodian, or caretaker . . . or who
is not provided necessary medical care; or who
is not provided necessary remedial care; or
who lives in an environment injurious to thejuvenile'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 been
subjected to . . . neglect by an adult who
regularly lives in the home.
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-101(15)(2006).
In the case sub judice, the trial court's findings of fact
reveal in pertinent part:
8. [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] attended pre-school
at the School for Young Children . . .[C.R.M.]
would be absent for periods of one to two
weeks and was observed, upon his return to
school, to have faint bruising or
discoloration on his body. In November, 2005,
[C.R.M.] reported to Miriam Fullem at the pre-
school that his mother and father would whip
him with a hand, a stick or a belt when he
“pooped” or “peed” in his pants. On December
13, 2005, [C.R.M.] came to day care with a
black eye and he told Ms. Fullem that “my dad
did it again . . . he slapped my eye.” In
late January, 2006, [S.S.M.] went to Ms.
Fullem's office with “places on her head” at
which time [S.S.M.] told Ms. Fullem that “my
mom pops me with a cord”.
9. In late January or early February, 2006,
Ginger Caisson, Caldwell County Department of
Social Services Supervisor, observed red
marks/bruising on [C.R.M.'s] legs, back, and
buttocks consistent with marks left by a belt
buckle. She spoke with both Mr. and Mrs.
McLean about the bruising and both parents
denied spanking [C.R.M.]. They attributed his
injuries to his being “accident prone.” At
the same time that Ms. Cassion observed the
bruising on [C.R.M.], she also observed a
significant burn on the back of [S.S.M.'s]
left hand. Both Mr. and Mrs. McLean were
untruthful to the Department of Social
Services when asked about the causes for these
observed injuries. Both parents later
admitted and testified that they were
untruthful when they were interviewed by the
Caldwell County Department of Social Services.
10. On February 3, 2006, [C.R.M.] and
[S.S.M.] were seen . . . at Mission Children's
Clinic as part of a Child Maltreatment
Evaluation concerning [C.R.M.'s] red
marks/bruising discovered a day or two prior
to the examination . . . [S.S.M.] disclosed to
Ms. Szlizewski that [C.R.M.] had bruises on
his legs because the father popped [C.R.M.]
sometimes with a belt. [S.S.M.] also disclosed
that the injury to her hand was a “boo-boo”
and the mother had caused it. The burn was
described by medical personnel to be a bright
red oblong burn.
. . . .
13. Dr. Brown's evaluation of [C.R.M.]
revealed a pattern of bruising on his right
lateral posterior and thighs consistent with
belt marks. Her evaluation also noted that
[C.R.M.] presented with scars on his scalp and
forearm. Dr. Brown's evaulation noted a
history of unexplained injuries for both
[C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.]; developmental delays
for both children and small size for both
children.
. . . .
19. Dr. Christopher Clapp, the pediatrician
for the children, . . . observed the
photograph of [S.S.M.'s] burn and described
the burn as a partial thickness burn
consistent with an intentionally inflicted
pressure burn. Christie Ferrar, Dr. Clapp's
certified medical assistant, was so distressed
by the appearance of the photos of the burn on
[S.S.M.'s] hand and the bruising on [C.R.M.],
as depicted in the photographs received by the
Court, that she shed tears . . . .
. . . .
25. Mr. McLean testified, and the Court
finds, that the corporeal [sic] punishment
that he inflicted on [C.R.M.] was wrong and
that he knew it was wrong. He offers as an
explanation that he wasn't thinking when he
inflicted the injuries on [C.R.M.].
26. [C.R.M.'s] injuries, to-wit red marks and
bruising noted on February 3, 2006, wereintentionally inflicted by Paul McLean. This
was not the first time [C.R.M.] sustained
intentionally inflicted injuries in the McLean
home.
27. [S.S.M.'s] burn was intentionally
inflicted and was not accidental, and the
mother's explanation of how the burn happened
is not credible. This was not the first time
[S.S.M.] received intentionally inflicted
injuries in the McLean home.
28. [M.K.M.], the oldest child, has resided
in the home where these intentional injuries
were inflicted on her brother and sister. She
has been aware of the nature, extent and cause
of the injuries inflicted on her brother and
sister.
The evidence presented is clear and convincing evidence that
supports the trial court's findings of fact that the mother
neglected the minor children. Jerri Szlizewski (“Ms. Szlizewski”),
a child forensic interviewer at the Mission Children's Clinic,
interviewed the minor children. She interviewed the children at
the Child Maltreatment Evaluation program before they received
their physical examination. On 3 February 2006, S.S.M. told Ms.
Szlizewski her “daddy” sometimes hits her brother, C.R.M., with his
hand and belt. When Ms. Szlizewski questioned S.S.M. about the
burn on the top of her hand, she said “momma,” and “claimed
something hot was involved.” However, Ms. Szlizewski was unable to
obtain any further details. On 3 February 2006 and 24 March 2006,
Ms. Szlizewski interviewed C.R.M. He indicated he had a “boo boo”
on “his right leg, his left leg and on his back,” but wouldn't give
Ms. Szlizewski any further details about his injuries. On 24 March
2006, Ms. Szlizewski interviewed M.K.M. Ms. Szlizewski testified
in relevant part: Q. What were the results of that interview?
A. [M.K.M.] gave me some information about
[S.S.M.] very reluctantly . . . . She denied
that anyone in the home gets spanked and then
later did admit that, yes, she had seen marks
on [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] and she described
where she had seen those marks . . . . I asked
her specifically about if she could tell me
anything about tape and she initially said
that they played with tape while making maps.
And I asked her if there wasn't something else
that she knew about the tape that wasn't so
much fun. She revealed that they would tape
the children up, [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.], and
she then demonstrated to me how that would
happen. She stood up and held her hands
crossed behind her back and made a motion
across the front of her as to the tape would
go across the front of the shoulders all the
way around to the back and then their legs
would be crossed and then she said mom would
have dad pick up their legs so that the legs
could be taped across and then the children
would then be placed in a room sometimes over
night . . . . I asked her if anything bad ever
happened, if anybody ever got hurt when they
were taped and she initially denied that
anything ever happened to them when they get
taped up . . . . and then she did admit that,
yes, [C.R.M.] was hopping around and he fell
and hit a planter and got cut.
Furthermore, Miriam Fullam (“Ms. Fullam”), an employee at the
School, corroborated Ms. Szlizewski's testimony. Ms. Fullam
testified as follows:
Q. Ma'am, what, if anything, happened on
November 17, 2005 as it pertains to [C.R.M.]?
. . . .
A. He was brought to my office for not
complying with the teacher, not getting his
academic work done and I asked him what was
wrong, what's been going on in the classroom,
why are you here and he said that he _- that
his mom and dad whip him when he pees or poops
in his pants, that they whip him with a stick
or their hand. Then he went on to tell methat they _- that his dad whips him before he
puts him in the tub, with a belt and that they
get mad at him.
Q. Now ma'am, was there a similar experience
on December 15, 2005?
A. Yes, on that day I went down to the room
because Ms. Mitchell had come to get me with
some concerns. I believe on that day his eye
was bluish, black eye, you know, looked like a
black eye. When I asked [C.R.M.] on that day
what was wrong or what had happened to his
eye, he said that my dad did it and I said how
did your dad do it and he said with his hand
and he imitated a slap or mimicked a slap with
his hand. Then he said to me, daddy made it
blue.
Dr. Christopher Clapp (“Dr. Clapp”) testified that the burn on
S.S.M.'s hand required the application of pressure for several
seconds and could not have been the result of an injury described
by the mother. Dr. Clapp testified as follows:
Q. So if you had seen [S.S.M.] with the burn
on her hand as depicted in that photograph and
the explanation that you were provided was
that a hot curling iron was dropped on her
hand, would the injury you see depicted in
that photograph be consistent with that
explanation?
A. No.
Q. In your opinion, with a hot curling iron,
how long would it have to be in contact with
the skin to cause the type of burn depicted in
that photograph?
. . . .
A. It's not a glancing injury because you
can see pressure was applied because the
center of the burn is much deeper than the
surface.
Q. So that would indicate that pressure had
been applied when the curling iron hit the
hand?
A. The typical curling iron injury that we
see several times a year is a little kid
reaching up and grabbing it and the whole burn
. . . and it would be the same like a hot
object like a stove or a kerosene heater, it
tends to develop into . . . .
Q. So this would require the application of
the heated item with pressure for several
seconds to achieve that burn; is that correct?
A. That's my opinion.
Dr. Cynthia Brown (“Dr. Brown”), medical director of the Child
Maltreatment Evaluation Program, testified to her medical opinion
as to whether M.K.M. had been abused. Dr. Brown testified in
relevant part:
Q. What was your opinion as to whether or
not [M.K.M.] had been abused?
A. We were concerned that there was a
possibility she had been physically abused
based on her disclosure and her guarded
demeanor during the interview. We were also
concerned with the affect [sic] of what she
had witnessed happening to her siblings.
. . . .
Q. . . . Did you perform a medical
evaluation of [S.S.M.]?
A. Yes . . . . I recommended that [S.S.M.]
needed to be in a safe and stable environment.
Because of her prenatal history and failure to
thrive, I recommended that the child was . . .
from a developmental standpoint and agreed
that she could continue to attend preschool to
prepare her for entry into kindergarten in the
next few years. I also recommended that
because of the concern of physical abuse with
the brother and perhaps [S.S.M.], I
recommended a psychological evaluation of the
parents, anger management and parenting
classes. I recommended that [S.S.M.] enter
into counseling . . . therapy to address what
she had experienced.
. . . .
A. Based on our evaluation that day, I
thought it was possible [S.S.M.] had been
physically abused.
Q. And now [C.R.M.] appeared that day before
you . . . .
A. [C.R.M.] was also small in stature at
less than a third percentile. The examination
of skin was noted for a number of bruises,
particularly an area of pattern of bruises
that were on his right lateral and posterior
thigh. He also had a number of scarring on
his body . . . . He had a surgical appearing
scar on his face on the left side from his lip
extending up into his cheek and he had a scar
in his scalp. He also had a U-shaped scar on
his left forearm and then hypopigmented linear
cluster of scars on his right . . . .
Thus, the trial court's findings of fact were supported by
“clear and convincing evidence.” Moreover, the trial court's
findings of fact support its conclusions of law that the minor
children were neglected juveniles. This assignment of error is
overruled.
c. Motion to dismiss
The mother contends the trial court erred in denying her
motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. We disagree.
“Upon a motion to dismiss, the court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the petitioner, giving the petitioner
the benefit of any inference. The test is whether there is
substantial evidence to support petitioner's allegations.” In re
Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. at 478, 539 S.E.2d at 364. In the case sub
judice, DSS filed three separate petitions alleging that all three
minor children were neglected juveniles. We already found there isclear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings
of fact, and the court's findings support its conclusion of law
that the mother neglected the minor children. Therefore, at the
close of all the evidence, DSS had presented “substantial evidence”
to support their allegations. Thus, the trial court did not err in
denying the mother's motion. This assignment of error is
overruled.
The mother has failed to bring forward any arguments
concerning her remaining assignments of error; therefore, they are
deemed abandoned and we need not address them. N.C.R. App. P.
28(b)(6).
II. The Father's appeal
The father contends the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering it was in the best interests of the minor children to
cease efforts toward reunification and visitation. We disagree.
“The trial court may only order the cessation of reunification
efforts when it finds facts based upon credible evidence presented
at the hearing that support its conclusion of law to cease
reunification efforts.” In re N.G., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 650
S.E.2d 45, 51 (2007)(internal quotation marks omitted)(citation
omitted). “This Court reviews an order that ceases reunification
efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate
findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence,
whether the findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions,
and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to
disposition.” In re C.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 644 S.E.2d 588,594 (2007)(citation omitted). “At the disposition stage, the trial
court solely considers the best interests of the child.” In re
Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 766, 561 S.E.2d 560, 567 (2002).
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-901 (2006), the trial court,
at the dispositional hearing, “may consider any evidence, including
hearsay evidence as defined in G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801, that the court
finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to determine the
needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. . 7B-507 (2006) provides that a trial court may enter an
order ceasing reunification efforts with the parents if the court
makes the written findings of fact stated in relevant part:
1) Such efforts clearly would be futile or
would be inconsistent with the juvenile's
health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent
home within a reasonable period of time [or]
2) A court of competent jurisdiction has
determined that the parent has subjected the
child to aggravated circumstances as defined
in G.S. 7B-101[.]
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-507(b)(2006).
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 7B-101(2) defines aggravated circumstances
as, “[a]ny circumstance attending to the commission of an act of
abuse or neglect which increases its enormity or adds to its
injurious consequences, including, but not limited to, abandonment,
torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse.”
In the case sub judice, the trial court, in the
disposition order, states in relevant part:
11. In late February 2006, [the mother] made
the statement to Louise Walker, a friend of
the [parents] for approximately ten years,
that she . . . had “tore his ass up,”referring to [C.R.M.]. The [mother] also
asked Ms. Walker to come to Court on her
behalf and to provide false testimony to the
Court. Ms. Walker declined to do so. [The
mother] now acknowledges that she had asked
Ms. Walker to lie for her in Court.
12. Dr. Christopher Clapp, the pediatrician
for the children, who is licensed to practice
medicine in North Carolina, was called by the
Respondent parents during the adjudication of
this matter and was found by the Court to be
an expert witness, observed the photograph of
[S.S.M.'s] burn and described the burn as a
partial thickness burn consistent with an
intentionally inflicted pressure burn. The
letters submitted by [the parents] from Dr.
Clapp at disposition, were written by Dr.
Clapp, at the request of the [parents], prior
to his testifying in Court and prior to his
examination of the photographs received by the
Court during the adjudication hearing. The
subsequent letter by Dr. Clapp dated September
14, 2006, written at the request of the
guardian ad litem volunteer . . . more closely
conforms to the evidence received from
reviewing the medical records in Court and
observing the photographs of the burn on
[S.S.M.'s] hand.
13. [The mother] testified during the
adjudication hearing that the burn to
[S.S.M.'s] hand was likely the result of
[S.S.M.] becoming entangled in the cord and
pulling a heated curling iron onto her hand
and not intentional. The Court does not find
this explanation of how the injury occurred to
be credible. Dr. Clapp also refuted this as
an explanation of how this burn caused and
further refuted the explanation offered by
[the mother] that the appearance of the burn
was made worse by actions taken by the staff
at the day care in applying a bandage to the
burn.
14. The father . . . . has a biological
daughter, age 18, with whom he has had a
strained relationship. The mother . . . . has
two biological children . . . with whom she
has had a strained relationship . . . . There
are no relatives of either [parent] who wouldbe appropriate to have the placement of the
minor children.
. . . .
17. During the first five weeks in foster
care both [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] had
significant weight gains. When [C.R.M.] came
into foster care he wore clothes in size 2T
(Toddler). He had gained only six pounds,
three ounces during the entire three years and
three months he resided with [the parents].
[C.R.M.] gained four pounds during the first
five weeks in foster care. [S.S.M.] was also
small in that she weighed only twenty-seven
pounds when she came into foster care. She
has gained approximately fifteen pounds since
being in foster care, a period of
approximately one year. The significant
weight gains experienced by [C.R.M.] and
[S.S.M.] once they were placed in foster care
as opposed to their low weights while in the
care of [their parents] is evidence of
psychosocial failure to thrive.
18. All of the children testified in their
respective depositions that the potty training
techniques/punishments employed by [the
parents] included placing feces in the faces
of [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] when they had
toileting accidents. The Court finds this to
be credible. The Court also finds that such
techniques are inconsistent with the training
and parenting classes which [the parents] had
as foster parents.
. . . .
20. The children report, and the Court finds,
that [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] were taped by
[their parents]. Their ankles and wrists were
taped together. [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] were
frequently taped and left at home alone by
[the parents] . . . . This taping by [the
parents] was a means of disciplining of
[C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] imposed by the
[parents]. [C.R.M.'s] fall into a planter
outside his bedroom which resulted in a
significant cut to his face that required
stitches occurred while he was taped hand and
foot. He was taped and left his room, hopped
down the hall and fell into the planter.
21. Dr. Clapp, the children's treating
pediatrician . . . opined that the injuries in
the photographs received by the Court during
adjudication were intentionally inflicted
injuries . . . .
22. Dr. Clapp also opined in his letter dated
September 14, 2006, that the persistent low
weights of [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] coupled with
their significant weight gains after coming
into foster care, was considered to be
maltreatment of the children and psychosocial
failure to thrive. The Court finds that
[C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] were the victims of
maltreatment by [the parents] which resulted
in low weight gains and psychosocial failure
to thrive.
23. Dr. Clapp also expressed the opinion that
[C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] could suffer from long-
term behavioral and psychological issues due
to experiencing maltreatment up to their ages
four or five when they would have concrete
memories of these experiences . . . . Dr.
Clapp identified a stable home with normal
parent-child relations as a necessary
component of assisting [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.]
in dealing with the emotional and
psychological issues caused by their
experiences.
. . . .
25. [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] both have
significant mental health diagnoses. Since
coming into the custody of the Department they
have been placed together in foster care, they
have been in counseling and have made
progress.
. . . .
29. All three children have mental health
diagnoses. [M.K.M.] has been diagnosed with
Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood . . . .
30. [S.S.M.] was also given a diagnosis of
adjustment disorder when she started
counseling . . . .
31. [C.R.M.] was most effected by the events
and experiences in the . . . home. He wasinitially given a diagnosis of an adjustment
disorder when he began counseling. [C.R.M.'s]
chaotic behavior was to be expected for a
child who has dealt with the level of abuse
and neglect reported by [C.R.M.] in the . . .
home. As school began [C.R.M.] showed aspects
of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). An
assessment was begun but not completed.
[C.R.M.'s] behaviors and symptoms subsided and
RAD is not now a likely diagnosis. A more
likely diagnosis is Complex Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder. [C.R.M.'s] need for
counseling is likely to continue for some time
yet.
32. . . . . [The children] lived in an
emotionally abusive environment with [their
parents]. The return of the children to such
an environment would cause all progress in
counseling to be undone.
. . . .
34. [M.K.M.] testified in her deposition, and
the Court finds, that [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.]
were taped by [the parents] as a form of
discipline. [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] both were
spanked by [the parents], as was [M.K.M.].
[C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] had feces put in their
faces as a result of toileting accidents.
35. [M.K.M.] testified in her deposition, and
the Court finds, that [C.R.M.] was taped and
hopped out of his room when he fell into the
planter. [The parents] were the ones who taped
him. He was not taped to anything but his
feet and arms were taped together. [M.K.M.]
was never taped. [S.S.M.] and [C.R.M.] were
taped to keep them from going into the living
room and playing.
36. [S.S.M.] testified in her deposition, and
the Court finds, that she and [C.R.M.] were
taped on numerous occasions by both [the
parents]. They were also spanked with belts
by [the parents] for toileting accidents and
other reasons.
. . . .
39. That the acts of the Respondent parents,
including taping the minor children; holding
feces in the faces of the minor children; the
psychosocial failure to thrive suffered by
[M.K.M.], [C.R.M.] and [S.S.M.] at the hands
of [the parents]. In addition, the court received and reviewed a number of
photographs of the children, some offered by the guardian ad Litem
and two offered by the parents. Moreover, the trial court, in the
disposition order, incorporated by reference the findings of fact
entered by the court in the adjudication order. We previously
determined that these findings of fact were supported by “clear and
convincing evidence.” Therefore, we conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion, and there is “credible evidence
presented at the hearing that support its conclusion of law to
cease reunification efforts.” Furthermore, because “[a]t the
disposition stage, the trial court solely considers the best
interests of the child,” we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in ceasing visitation between the minor
children and parents. In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. at 766, 561
S.E.2d at 567. This assignment of error is overruled.
The father has failed to bring forward any arguments
concerning his remaining assignments of error; therefore, they are
deemed abandoned and we need not address them. N.C.R. App. P.
28(b)(6).
In conclusion, we hold that the trial court's findings of fact
are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and
the trial court's findings support its conclusions. Thus, we
affirm the trial court's adjudication and disposition in this
matter.
Affirmed.
Judges STEPHENS and ARROWOOD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***