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An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute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. COA11-1046
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  20 December  2011
In the Matter of:
Watauga County
K.A.                                                                                            No.  11 J  03
Appeal  by  Respondent-mother  from  orders  entered                                            4  April
2011  by  Judge  Ted  McEntire  and  2  June  2011  by  Judge  William  A.
Leavell,  III,  in  Watauga  County  District  Court.     Heard  in  the
Court of Appeals  28 November  2011.
Eggers,  Eggers,  Eggers  &  Eggers,  by  Kimberly  M.  Eggers  and
Stacy C. Eggers, IV, for Petitioner-appellee.
GAL Appellate Counsel Pamela Newell, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Assistant    Appellate    Defender    J.    Lee    Gilliam,    for
Respondent-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Respondent-mother  appeals  from                                                                (1)  an  order  adjudicating
her child, Kevin1, abused, neglected, and dependent as alleged in
a  juvenile  petition  and  (2)  a  disposition  order  awarding  custody
of  Kevin  to  the  Watauga  County  Department  of  Social  Services
1 A pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the minor child.




-2-
(“Petitioner”)  pursuant  to  a  permanent  plan  of  reunification
with Respondent-mother.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
On                                                                            26  January                                                 2011,  Petitioner  filed  a  juvenile  petition
alleging  Kevin  was:                                                         (1)  an  abused  juvenile  in  that  his  parent
“has  used  or  allowed  to  be  used  upon  the  juvenile  cruel  or
grossly  inappropriate  devices  or  procedures  to  modify  behavior”;
(2)  a  neglected  or  seriously  neglected  juvenile  in  that  he           (a)
“does  not  receive  proper  care,  supervision,  or  discipline”  from
his  parent  or  guardian  or  (b)  “lives  in  an  environment  injurious
to                                                                            [his]  welfare”;  and                                                                                         (3)  a  dependent  juvenile  in  that  his
parent  or  guardian                                                                                                                      “is  unable  to  provide  for                                                                  [his]  care  or
supervision  and  lacks  an  appropriate  alternative  child  care
arrangement.”    After  an  adjudication  hearing  on                         15  March                                                   2011,
the  court  made  findings  of  fact  indicating  that  six-year-old
Kevin  and  Respondent-mother  moved  to  Watauga  County  from  Ohio  in
the  summer  of  2010.    Kevin  enrolled  in  school,  and,  in  response
to  reports  from  his  teacher  that  Kevin  talked  excessively  in
class,  Respondent-mother  undertook  actions  to  discipline  Kevin
for  his  misbehavior.    These  actions  included:  forcing  Kevin  to
stand  in  a                                                                  “T-Shape,”  which  entailed  holding  his  arms  straight
out  by  his  side  for  up  to  five  minutes  at  a  time;  placing  duct




-3-
tape  over  his  mouth;  and/or  striking  him  with  a  belt,  paddle,
switch,  or  other  object.    Respondent-mother  used  a  stopwatch  to
measure  the  time  the  child  held  his  arms  out  in  the  form  of  a
“T.”    She  increased  the  amount  of  time  during  which  Kevin  held
out  his  arms  by  increments  of  thirty  seconds  when  Kevin’s
behavior  failed  to  improve.    Kevin  learned  to  breathe  whenever
he  had  duct  tape  over  his  mouth  by  pushing  his  tongue  against
the  tape  and  creating  an  airway  through  a  corner  of  the  tape.
When  Kevin  was  taken  into  Petitioner’s  custody,  he  had  injuries
to  his  arms  and  legs  that  had  been  inflicted  by  Respondent-
mother and/or her boyfriend.
Based  upon  the  foregoing  findings,  the  court  concluded  that
Kevin  was:  (1)  an  abused  juvenile  as  defined  by  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.
§  7B-101(1)  in  that  Respondent-mother  “has  used  or  allowed  to  be
used   on   the   minor   child   cruel   and   grossly   inappropriate
procedures   to   modify   the   minor   child’s   behavior[;]”               (2)   a
neglected   juvenile   in   that   Respondent-mother                          “has   used   and
allowed  to  be  used  inappropriate  discipline  methods  on  the  minor
child  and  the  child  has  lived  in  an  environment  injurious  to  the
child’s   welfare[;]”   and                                                   (3)   a   dependent   juvenile   in   that
Respondent-mother                                                             “has  been  unable  to  provide  for  the  care  or
supervision  of  the  child  and  lacks  an  appropriate  child  care




-4-
                                                                             arrangement.”    The  court  adjudicated  Kevin  an  abused,  neglected,
and  dependent  juvenile  on                                                 31  March                                                                  2011  and  set  a  disposition
hearing for  18 April  2011.
In  its  subsequent  disposition  order,  the  court  concluded
that   it   is   in   Kevin’s   best   interest   that   he   remain   in
Petitioner’s  custody  under  a  permanent  plan  of  reunification.
The   court   concluded   that   the   plan   of   reunification   is
appropriate,  in  his  best  interest,  and                                  “meets  his  physical  and
emotional needs, and is consistent with his health and safety.”
II. Standard of Review
“The  allegations  in  a  petition  alleging  abuse,  neglect,  or
dependency  shall  be  proved  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence.”
N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                            §                                                                          7B-805                                               (2009).    In  the  adjudicatory  phase,  a
trial  court  is  required  to  determine  whether  the  allegations  are
proven   by   clear   and   convincing   evidence,   whereas   in   the
disposition   stage,   the   court   is   required   to   decide   what
disposition  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the  child.    In  re  O.W.,
164   N.C.   App.                                                            699,                                                                       701,                                                 596   S.E.2d                                            851,   853                         (2004).              In
                                                                                                                                                        reviewing  an  adjudication  order,  we  determine                                                                                              “(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  Pittman,                                                                  149  N.C.  App.                                  756,




-5-
763-64,                                                                      561  S.E.2d                                              560,                                                                             566,  appeal  dismissed  and  disc.  review
denied,                                                                      356  N.C.                                                163,   568  S.E.2d                                                               608-09                                        (2002),  cert.  denied,
                                                                                                                                             Harris-Pittman  v.  Nash  County  Dep’t  of  Social  Servs.,                                                                                            538  U.S.
982,                                                                         155  L.  Ed.                                       2d    673    (2003).                                                                                                                 In  reviewing  a  disposition
                                                                                                                                             order,  this  Court  evaluates  whether  the  trial  court  abused  its
                                                                                                                                             discretion  in  making  its  determination  of  the  child’s  best
                                                                             interest.     In  re  C.W.,                                     182  N.C.  App.                                                           214,                                          218-19,                         641  S.E.2d
725,  729  (2007).
III. Analysis
Respondent  contends  the  court  erred  in  concluding  that
Kevin  was  an  abused,  neglected,  and  dependent  juvenile.     She
argues  the  court’s  findings  of  fact  are  insufficient  to  support
these   conclusions.                                                         She   also   contends   the   court   erred   by
directing   its   dispositional   order   towards   punishment   of
Respondent  instead  of  providing  for  Kevin’s  needs  and  best
interest.
Definitions  set  out  in  the  Juvenile  Code                               “are  given  a
precise  and  understandable  meaning  by  the  normative  standards
imposed  upon  parents  by  our  society[.]”    In  re  Biggers,  50  N.C.
App.  332,  341,  274  S.E.2d  236,  241  (1981).    One  such  definition
is  that  of  an  abused  juvenile  found  at  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.             §                                                  7B-




-6-
101(1),  which  defines  an  abused  juvenile  as  one  whose   parent,
custodian, or guardian:
a. Inflicts  or  allows  to  be  inflicted
upon  the  juvenile  a  serious  physical  injury
by                                                              other                                                than                           accidental         means;
b. Creates  or  allows  to  be  created  a
substantial  risk  of  serious  physical  injury
to  the  juvenile  by  other  than  accidental
means;
c. Uses  or  allows  to  be  used  upon  the
juvenile   cruel   or   grossly   inappropriate
procedures  or  cruel  or  grossly  inappropriate
devices                                                         to                                                   modify                         behavior;
                                                                d. Commits,  permits,  or  encourages  the
                                                                commission  of  a  violation  of  the  following
                                                                laws  by,  with,  or  upon  the  juvenile:  first-
degree  rape,  as  provided  in  G.S.                                                                                                               14-27.2;
                                                                rape  of  a  child  by  an  adult  offender,  as
provided   in   G.S.                                                                                                 14-27.2A;   second   degree
rape  as  provided  in  G.S.                                                                                                                        14-27.3;  first-
                                                                degree  sexual  offense,  as  provided  in  G.S.
                                                                14-27.4;  sexual  offense  with  a  child  by  an
                                                                adult   offender,   as   provided   in   G.S.                                                          14-
                                                                27.4A;   second   degree   sexual   offense,   as
provided  in  G.S.                                                                                                   14-27.5;  sexual  act  by  a
custodian,   as   provided   in   G.S.                                                                                                              14-27.7;
crime  against  nature,  as  provided  in  G.S.
14-177;  incest,  as  provided  in  G.S.                        14-178;
preparation  of  obscene  photographs,  slides,
or   motion   pictures   of   the   juvenile,   as
provided   in   G.S.                                            14-190.5;   employing   or
permitting   the   juvenile   to   assist   in   a
violation  of  the  obscenity  laws  as  provided
in  G.S.                                                        14-190.6;  dissemination  of  obscene
material  to  the  juvenile  as  provided  in  G.S.
14-190.7  and  G.S.                                             14-190.8;  displaying  or
                                                                disseminating    material    harmful    to    the
juvenile  as  provided  in  G.S.                                14-190.14  and
G.S.                                                            14-190.15;   first   and   second   degree




-7-
sexual   exploitation   of   the   juvenile   as
provided   in   G.S.                                                          14-190.16   and   G.S.                          14-
190.17;  promoting  the  prostitution  of  the
juvenile  as  provided  in  G.S.                                              14-190.18;  and
taking  indecent  liberties  with  the  juvenile,
as                                                                            provided                                        in          G.S.      14-202.1;
e. Creates   or   allows   to   be   created
serious  emotional  damage  to  the  juvenile;
serious  emotional  damage  is  evidenced  by  a
juvenile’s    severe    anxiety,    depression,
withdrawal,   or   aggressive   behavior   toward
himself                                                                       or                                              others;     or
f. Encourages,  directs,  or  approves  of
delinquent   acts   involving   moral   turpitude
committed by the juvenile.
N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                             §                                               7B-101(1)   (2009).   In  construing  N.C.  Gen.
Stat.  §  7B-101(1)  as  a  whole,  our  Supreme  Court  has  stated  that
a  juvenile  is  abused                                                       “when  a  caretaker  harms  the  juvenile  in
some   way,   allows   the   juvenile   to   be   harmed,   or   allows   a
substantial  risk  of  harm.”  In  re  M.G.,                                  363  N.C.                                       570,        573,      681
S.E.2d  290,  292  (2009).    The  Court  stated  that  the  harm  may  be
physical,  emotional,  or  some  combination  thereof  and  cited  N.C.
Gen.  Stat.  §  7B-101(1)(c)  as  an  example  of  combined  physical  and
emotional harm.    Id.
As  a  general  principle,  a  parent’s  conduct  resulting  in  the
filing  of  a  juvenile  petition  “must  be  viewed  on  a  case-by-case
basis  considering  the  totality  of  the  evidence.”    In  re  L.T.R.,
181  N.C.  App.  376,  384,  639  S.E.2d  122,  127                           (2007).    The  issue




-8-
in   this   case   is   whether   the   disciplinary   methods   used   by
Respondent-mother   were                                                     “cruel   or   grossly   inappropriate”   as
alleged in the petition and determined by the court.
The  court’s  findings  at  bar  reflect  that  the  court  saw
photographic  evidence  of  scratches  on  Kevin’s  arms  and  legs
which  resulted  from  Respondent-mother’s  disciplinary  measures
and  that  the  injuries  to  his  arm  and  body  which  were  present
when   he   was   taken   into   custody   remained   for   several   days
thereafter.    The  findings  further  reveal  that  Kevin                   “gained  an
appreciation  for  the  risk  of  death”  when  the  duct  tape  was
placed  over  his  mouth  and  he  was  forced  to  create  an  airway  by
which  to  breathe  through  his  mouth.     The  court  also  observed
that  Respondent-mother  reported  in  writing  to  Kevin’s  teacher
she  had  disciplined  Kevin  for  misbehaving  in  school  by  requiring
him  to  write  his                                                          “ABC’s”  and  his  numbers  but  that  Respondent-
mother   failed   to   mention   she   had   also   imposed                  “T-shape”
punishment,  leading  the  court  to  make  the  following  finding  of
fact:
The  concealment  of  the  punishments  that  she
actually  used  on  the  minor  child,  and  the
fact  that  she  wrote  that  she  had  used  other,
more   appropriate,   punishments   indicate   to
the    Court    that    Respondent    mother    was
deceptive  about  what  type  of  punishments  she
was  actually  implementing  on  the  minor  child
and  that  such  punishments  were  cruel,  and




-9-
grossly  inappropriate  for  the  minor  child,
particularly   given   his   age   and   social
development.
The   court’s   findings   also   take   note   of   two   admissions   by
Respondent-mother:                                                           (1)   that   when   she   and   her   boyfriend
administered  the  punishments,  Kevin’s  face  would  be  flushed  and
he  would  cry;  and                                                         (2)  that  it  would  be  very  painful  to  stand
with  one’s  arms  raised  in  the  shape  of  a                             “T”  for  up  to  five
minutes.
In  sum,  the  court’s  findings  show  that  Kevin  sustained  both
physical  and  emotional  injury  as  a  result  of  Respondent-mother’s
disciplinary   measures   and   that   Respondent-mother   knew   the
disciplinary  measures  were  cruel  and  grossly  inappropriate  as
demonstrated  by  her  concealing  them  from  Kevin’s  teacher.     We
conclude  the  court’s  findings  of  fact  support  the  conclusion  of
law and the adjudication of Kevin as an abused juvenile.
Although  we  have  upheld  the  adjudication  of  abuse,  we  also
consider   the   two   adjudications   of   neglected   and   dependent
juvenile   because   of   their   possible   impact   upon   further
proceedings  or  future  adjudications  in  this  matter.    See  In  re
E.C.,                                                                        174  N.C.  App.                                      517,   525,                                               621  S.E.2d                       647,   653   (2005).   A
                                                                             neglected juvenile is defined as one
                                                                                                                                         who    does    not    receive    proper    care,
                                                                             supervision,                                                                                                   or    discipline    from    the




-10-
juvenile’s  parent,  guardian,  custodian,  or
caretaker;  or  who  has  been  abandoned;  or  who
is  not  provided  necessary  medical  care;  or
who  is  not  provided  necessary  remedial  care;
or  who  lives  in  an  environment  injurious  to
the   juvenile’s   welfare;   or   who   has   been
placed  for  care  or  adoption  in  violation  of
law.
                                                                             N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  7B-101(15)  (2009).                                                                                                                                                           “In  general,  treatment  of
                                                                                                                                                                                         a  child  which  falls  below  the  normative  standards  imposed  upon
                                                                                                                         parents   by   our   society   is   considered   neglectful.”                                                                                                                                    In   re
Thompson,                                                                    64  N.C.  App.                              95,                                                             99,                                                                       306  S.E.2d   792,                           794       (1983).
“[T]here                                                                                                                                                                                 [must]   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.’”    Matter  of  Safriet,  112  N.C.
App.                                                                         747,                                        752,                                                            436  S.E.2d                                                               898,          901-02                         (1993).   The  court’s
findings  in  the  case  at  bar  show  that  Respondent-mother  began
whipping  Kevin  with  a  belt  beginning  when  he  was  four-years-old.
On  occasion,  while  Kevin  was  in  the                                    “T-shape”  formation,  she
placed  duct  tape  over  his  mouth  and  hit  him  with  objects
including  a  belt,  a  paddle,  and  switches,  which  at  times  have
left  scratch  marks.     The  Court  saw  photographic  evidence  of
these  scratches,  which  remained  for  several  days  after  they  were
inflicted.     The  Court  found  Kevin                                      “gained  an  appreciation  for
the   risk   of   death   from   use   of   these   procedures   upon




-11-
him[.  .  .                                                                   .]”                                                                                                                                                                  We   hold   these   findings   support   the   court’s
conclusion that Kevin was neglected.
                                                                                                                                                                           We  next  address  the  court’s  adjudication  of  Kevin  as  a
                                                                                                           dependent  juvenile.     A  juvenile  is  dependent  if  his                                                                                                                                        “parent,
                                                                                                                                                                           guardian,  or  custodian  is  unable  to  provide  for  the  care  or
supervision                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        [of   the   juvenile]   and   lacks   an   appropriate
                                                                                                           alternative  child  care  arrangement.”     N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                                                                                                       §          7B—
101(9)                                                                        (2009).                                                                                                                                                              “Under  this  definition,  the  trial  court  must
address   both                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (1)   the   parent’s   ability   to   provide   care   or
supervision,   and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (2)   the   availability   to   the   parent   of
alternative  child  care  arrangements.”    In  re  P.M.,  169  N.C.  App.
423,                                                                          427,                         610   S.E.2d                                                    403,                                                                    406                                                         (2005).    “Findings  of  fact
addressing  both  prongs  must  be  made  before  a  juvenile may  be
adjudicated  as  dependent,  and  the  court’s  failure  to  make  these
findings  will  result  in  reversal  of  the                                 [trial]  court.”    In  re
B.M.,  183 N.C. App.  84,  90,  643 S.E.2d  644,  648  (2007).
We  have  carefully  scrutinized  the  court’s  findings  of  fact
related  to  adjudication  and  we  are  unable  to  locate  a  finding  as
to  the  first  prong,  i.e.,  that  Respondent-mother  is  unable  to
provide  for  the  care  or  supervision  of  the  juvenile.     None  of
the  court’s  findings  of  fact  indicate  that  Respondent-mother
lacks  the  ability  to  provide  care  or  supervision  for  Kevin.    A




-12-
juvenile  who  has  a  parent  who  is  capable  of  providing  care  or
supervision  is  not  a  dependent  juvenile,  and  a  court  errs  when
it  adjudicates  the  juvenile  as  such.     In  re  J.A.G.,                 172  N.C.
App.  708,  716,  617 S.E.2d  325,  332  (2005).
We  therefore  reverse  the  adjudication  that  Kevin  is  a
dependent  juvenile.     The  adjudications  of  Kevin  as  abused  and
neglected   still   stand   and   are   sufficient   to   support   the
continued  removal  of  Kevin  from  the  home.     See  E.C.,                174  N.C.
App.  at                                                                      525,                                                        621  S.E.2d  at   653   (A  single  adjudication  that  a
juvenile  is  either  abused  or  neglected  or  dependent,  standing
alone,  is  sufficient  to  support  the  removal  of  a  child  from  the
home.).
Respondent-mother    lastly    challenges    the    dispositional
order.                                                                        She  first  argues  that  the  order  should  be  vacated
because  it  is  based  upon  unlawful  adjudications  that  Kevin  was
an  abused,  neglected,  and  dependent  juvenile.     Given  that  we
have  upheld  the  lawfulness  of  the  adjudications  of  abuse  and
neglect,    we    dismiss    this    argument.                                Respondent-mother
alternatively  argues  that  the  order  should  be  set  aside  because
it  was  improperly  used  to  punish  her  instead  of  being  based  upon
a  consideration  of  Kevin’s  needs  and  best  interest.     We  find




-13-
nothing   in   the   dispositional   order   to   support   Respondent-
mother’s assertion.
We  affirm  the  adjudications  that  Kevin  was  an  abused  and
neglected  juvenile,  and  reverse  the  adjudication  that  Kevin  was
a dependent juvenile.    We affirm the dispositional order.
The orders are
Reversed in part and affirmed in part; affirmed.
Judges STEELMAN and GEER concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 11-1046.pdf

South Carolina Law