Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA10-688 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 December 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: A.M., S.G., A.G., P.G., I.G., and E.G. Mecklenburg County Nos. 07 JT 354-58 07 JT 956

Appeal by respondents from order entered 4 March 2010 by Judge Hugh B. Lewis in Mecklenburg County District Court. Court of Appeals 15 November 2010. Kathleen Arundell Widelski, Senior Associate Attorney for Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services, petitioner-appellee. Pamela Newell for Guardian ad Litem. Janet K. Ledbetter, for respondent-appellant mother. Assistant Appellate Defender respondent-appellant father. MARTIN, Chief Judge. M.G. ("respondent-mother") and E.H.M. ("respondent-father") (collectively "respondents") appeal from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights. For the reasons discussed Annick Lenoir-Peek, for Heard in the

herein, we affirm the order of the trial court. Respondent-mother is the biological mother of A.M. ("Adam"), S.G. ("Sarah"), A.G. ("Annie"), P.G. ("Paul"), I.G. ("Ivan"), and

-2E.G. ("Eric").1 Respondent-father is the biological father of only Eric. The biological fathers of the other children are not parties to this appeal. The Mecklenburg County Department of Social

Services, Youth and Family Services ("YFS") received a child protective services ("CPS") report regarding this family on 2 February 2007. Annie, Sarah, Paul, and Ivan attended Devonshire

Elementary School, and the school was concerned that the children were not being properly supervised. YFS received a second CPS

report regarding the children on 21 February 2007. The allegations were that respondent-father, who was respondent-mother's boyfriend, was abusive towards Adam and that respondent-mother inappropriately disciplined the children. The YFS social worker investigating the The social worker

report visited the home on 21 February 2007.

observed a bite mark on Adam's face and questioned respondentmother. Respondent-mother did not know how Adam got the bite mark Respondent-mother also denied

and she denied having a boyfriend. hitting the children. social worker's visit. her cousin.2

There was a young man in the home during the Respondent-mother said the young man was

At some point after the social worker's visit on 21

February 2007, respondent-mother and the children became homeless and YFS was unable to locate the family. On 20 April 2007, YFS received two CPS reports regarding the children. On that date, Adam, who was fourteen months old at the

1

Pseudonyms are used to protect the privacy of the children.

It was later determined that the young man was respondentmother's boyfriend, who is respondent-father in this appeal.

2

-3time, was brought Mark to the a Reedy Creek with Fire the Department Charlotte by Fire and

respondents. Department,

Smith,

captain Adam

testified

that

was

hyperventilating

non-responsive.

Adam later stopped breathing and the firemen Upon

removed Adam's clothing in anticipation of performing CPR.

removing Adam's clothing, Smith observed multiple bruises on Adam's torso. Smith also observed Adam had a laceration on his forehead. Adam was L2-L3

Adam was transported to the hospital via ambulance. diagnosed endplate retinal with left subdural old old hematoma with 4mm

shift;

fractures; hemorrhages;

bilateral proximal

tibia rays

fractures; fracture;

bilateral laceration

midforehead 2.5 cm in length; and multiple areas of bilateral ecchymosis over his face and bilateral upper and lower extremities. On 23 April 2007, YFS filed a juvenile petition alleging Adam was abused, neglected and dependent. The petition further alleged

that Sarah, Annie, Paul, and Ivan were neglected and dependent. YFS obtained non-secure custody of the children. Respondent-mother entered into a mediated family services agreement. The

adjudication hearing was held on 5 July 2007. the trial court entered an order as to

On 6 August 2007, respondent-mother,

adjudicating Adam abused, neglected, and dependent, and Sarah, Annie, Paul, and Ivan neglected and dependent. Respondent-mother November 2007. gave birth to another child, Eric, in

YFS filed a juvenile petition on 5 November 2007

alleging Eric was neglected and dependent. YFS obtained non-secure

-4custody of Eric as well. neglected and dependent. On 29 July 2008, a separate adjudication and disposition hearing was held as to respondent-father as caregiver of Adam, Sarah, Annie, Paul, and Ivan. The adjudication and disposition On 25 February 2008, Eric was adjudicated

order, entered on 1 August 2008, stated that until the court learned by whom and how Adam was injured, it was unlikely to place the children with either of the respondents because of grave concerns about the children's safety. A permanency planning hearing was conducted on 30 October 2008. By order entered 5 November 2008, the trial court changed

the permanent plan from reunification to adoption, and suspended visitation with respondent-mother. On 19 December 2008, YFS filed a petition to terminate

respondent-mother's parental rights to Adam, and motions in the cause to terminate her parental rights to Sarah, Annie, Paul, Ivan, and Eric. The motion in the cause filed regarding Eric also sought A pre-trial

termination of respondent-father's parental rights. hearing was held on 8 January 2009.

The termination of parental

rights hearing was held on 28-29 September, 18 November, 3 December 2009, and 25 January 2010. The trial court found grounds to

terminate respondents' parental rights pursuant to (1) neglect, N.C.G.S.

Download 10-688-8.pdf

South Carolina Law