In re: G.W. ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCCOA-784
No. COA22-137
Filed 6 December 2022
Stokes County, No. 21 JA 11
IN THE MATTER OF: G.W.
Appeal by Respondent from an order entered 16 November 2021 by Judge
Thomas B. Langan in Stokes County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
21 September 2022.
Sean P. Vitrano, for the Respondent-Appellant.
Leslie Rawls, for Stokes County Department of Social Services, the Petitioner-
Appellee.
GAL Appellate Attorney James N. Freeman, Jr., for the Guardian ad Litem.
WOOD, Judge.
¶1 Respondent-Mother (“Mother”) appeals from an order filed on 16 November
2021 adjudicating her child “Grace”1 as neglected. Because we hold there is sufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact, which in turn support the trial
court’s conclusion of there being a substantial risk of future neglect for Grace, we
1 We use pseudonyms to protect the child’s identity and for ease of reading.
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
affirm the adjudication order of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 Mother and Father2 are the parents of three daughters: “Anita,” “Hayley,”3 and
Grace. On 18 December 2018, Surry County Department of Social Services (“Surry
County DSS”) opened an investigation into allegations of neglect due to improper
care. The parents were alleged to have given Hayley improper foods, to have dipped
the baby’s pacifier in Benadryl, refused to take parenting classes, and to be
improperly feeding the baby, who was not gaining weight properly.
¶3 On 3 July 2020, DSS opened an investigation after receiving a report that
Mother and Father had accidentally spilled bleach in Anita’s eyes while cleaning near
her crib. Their home was found to be cockroach-infested, having holes in the floors,
and bags full of trash sitting in the home. On 6 July 2020, Mother and Father were
charged with felony child abuse and agreed to have their children reside with a
maternal great aunt.
¶4 Mother and Father moved to Stokes County and were contacted by a social
worker from Stokes County DSS on 14 July 2020. On 11 August 2020, Surry County
DSS learned of pending charges against the parents, including the charges of felony
child abuse, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and misdemeanor possession of
2 Father is not a party to this appeal.
3 We use pseudonyms to protect the children’s identities and for ease of reading.
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
marijuana paraphernalia. On 21 August 2020, a social worker reviewing records
from Surry County learned that Father had been diagnosed with PTSD and paranoid
schizophrenia that was untreated, that he was reported to have stabbed someone
because “the guy was going to try and kill him,” and that “he used to be in the Arian
[sic] Brotherhood gang.”
¶5 The social worker also learned that Mother has a history of intellectual
disability, bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and borderline
personality disorder. She was referred for a psychological assessment, and it was
recommended a guardian be assigned to her. On this same day, Stokes County DSS
filed petitions alleging that Graces’ sisters, Anita and Hayley, were abused and
neglected, and the children were placed in the nonsecure custody of the Stokes
County DSS. Anita was two years old; Hayley was five months old; and Grace had
not yet been born at this time. On 23 September 2020, the parents entered into a
family services case plan in relation to Anita and Hayley.
¶6 Grace was born on 21 January 2021, and, although Grace’s urine screen was
negative, Mother tested positive for marijuana and oxycodone at her birth. Because
the hospital is located in Forsyth County, Forsyth County DSS came to the hospital
to investigate the report. When the social worker initiated contact, Mother
immediately stated she would be leaving the hospital. Father “became irate” with
hospital staff and the social worker such that security had to be called. The hospital
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
refused to allow Grace to be discharged when Mother and Father attempted to leave
with her. Stokes County DSS filed a petition alleging Grace was a neglected juvenile
due to living in an environment injurious to her welfare. On this same day, Grace
was removed from Mother and Father’s custody pursuant to a nonsecure custody
order and placed in the custody of Stokes County DSS.
¶7 According to the petition, Stokes County DSS received a CPS report on the day
Grace was born alleging that Mother and Father had not followed recommendations
from their out of home family services case plan concerning their “parenting
psychological[,] . . . ha[d] not completed parenting classes and [were] not involved in
mental health services.” The petition also alleged that the parents changed their
stories several times about what happened to their other children and that hospital
staff reported the parents were “acting sketchy and paranoid, and [were] not wanting
anyone in their room.” The petition further stated that the parents had a positive
drug screen on 19 November 2020, for marijuana and that Mother had a positive
screen for marijuana and opiates in December 2020.
¶8 On 9 February 2021, the trial court ordered that (1) Grace shall remain in the
nonsecure custody of DSS; (2) the parents shall meet with Stokes County DSS worker,
Ms. Wanda Pearman, to explore services for themselves; (3) Stokes County DSS shall
conduct a home study of the relative identified by the parents for home and kinship
suitability; and (4) “Parents shall address the tasks of the case plans in 20 JA 98 and
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
99” for their other two children. The parents were allotted two hours per week of
supervised visitation with Grace to take place with her sisters who were also in the
custody of DSS. On this same day, the trial court appointed a Guardian ad litem on
behalf of Mother “based on the previous order and the [8 October 2020] report from
Dr. Bennett” of Carolina Piedmont Psychological Associates. According to Dr.
Bennett, Mother has “limitations to her cognitive capacity and that she would benefit
from someone who could help her understand the legal proceedings” because she
“does not understand the consequences of her decisions but she is easily influenced[.]”
¶9 On 25 February 2021, the trial court granted Stokes County DSS’ motion to
amend their juvenile petition for Grace. The amended petition added the following
allegation: on 26 January 2021, Grace’s umbilical cord tested positive for THC,
oxycodone, noroxycodone, oxymorphone, and noroxymorphone. On this same day,
Anita and Hayley were adjudicated neglected with the consent of Mother and Father.
On 26 March 2021, Mother’s attorney filed a motion to strike, motion to dismiss,
motion to set aside, and answer to the juvenile petition. The adjudication hearing set
in April was continued until June and then August due to Father being homebound
by a physician’s orders after a serious moped accident resulted in the amputation of
his leg and left him wheelchair bound.
¶ 10 On 26 August 2021, the trial court conducted an adjudication and disposition
hearing. The trial court adjudicated Grace to be a neglected juvenile due to living in
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
an “injurious environment, condition of home, — filthy, holes in floor.” Additionally,
the trial court found there was a substantial risk of future neglect and that her
parents had failed to address the conditions which resulted in the removal of their
two older children. The court determined that legal custody and physical custody of
Grace should remain with Stokes County DSS.
¶ 11 In its disposition, the trial court ordered that (1) both Father and Mother
obtain substance abuse assessments and comply with the recommended treatments;
(2) Mother obtain a mental health assessment and comply with recommended
treatment; (3) both parents attend individual counseling and Father specifically
attend anger management courses; (4) parents comply with the provisions of their
family services case plan entered on 23 September 2020 in relation to their two older
children; (5) parents maintain a suitable residence, including making necessary
repairs; (6) parents utilize YVEDDI transportation services; and (7) the parents
comply with recommendations made by Dr. Bennett in their psychological
assessments. The trial court further ordered that parents would continue to have
visitations with their children on a weekly basis for a two-hour duration at DSS, until
such time as “holes in floor [of home were] repaired.”
¶ 12 The formal adjudication judgment and dispositional order was filed on 16
November 2021. Mother gave notice of appeal on 8 December 2021.
II. Analysis
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
¶ 13 Mother contends the trial court’s conclusion that Grace faced a substantial risk
of future neglect was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore, it
was error to adjudicate her a neglected juvenile. She also contests several findings
of fact and conclusions of law in the adjudication order. However, Mother does not
challenge the disposition order.
¶ 14 The purpose of an adjudication hearing is to adjudicate “the existence or
nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-802
(2021). Thus, post-petition evidence is admissible for consideration of the child’s best
interest in the dispositional hearing, but generally not for an adjudication of neglect.
In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609, 635 S.E.2d 11, 15 (2006). In reviewing a non-jury
adjudication of neglect, “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., 178 N.C. App. 322, 327, 631 S.E.2d 150, 154
(2006) (citation omitted). Additionally, uncontested findings of fact “are deemed to
be supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re J.C.M.J.C., 268 N.C.
App. 47, 51, 834 S.E.2d 670, 673-74 (2019) (citation omitted). This Court reviews the
trial court’s conclusions of law to determine whether they are supported by the
findings of fact. In re W.C.T., 280 N.C. App. 17, 2021-NCCOA-559, ¶ 27. The
determination of whether a child is neglected is a legal conclusion that is reviewed de
novo. In re K.L., 272 N.C. App. 30, 36, 845 S.E.2d 182, 189 (2020). “An appeal de
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
novo is one ‘in which the appellate court uses the trial court’s record but reviews the
evidence and law without deference to the trial court’s rulings.’ ” In re K.S., 380 N.C.
60, 2022-NCSC-7, ¶ 8 (quoting Appeal De Novo, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.
2019)). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely
substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. (cleaned up).
¶ 15 A “neglected juvenile” is defined by statute as:
[a]ny juvenile less than 18 years of age . . . whose parent,
guardian, custodian, or caretaker . . . [c]reates or allows to
be created a living environment that is injurious to the
juvenile’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 died as a result
of suspected abuse or neglect or lives in a home where
another juvenile has been subjected to abuse or neglect by
an adult who regularly lives in the home.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2021). “[I]n order for a court to find that the child
resided in an injurious environment, evidence must show that the environment in
which the child resided has resulted in harm to the child or a substantial risk of
harm.” In re K.J.B., 248 N.C. App. 352, 354, 797 S.E.2d 516, 518 (2016) (citation
omitted).
¶ 16 When “neglect cases involv[e] newborns, ‘the decision of the trial court must of
necessity be predictive in nature, as the trial court must assess whether there is a
substantial risk of future abuse or neglect of a child based on the historical facts of
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
the case.’ ” In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. 1, 9, 822 S.E.2d 693, 698-99 (2019) (quoting In re
McLean, 135 N.C. App. 387, 396, 521 S.E.2d 121, 127 (1999)). Otherwise,
[t]o hold that a newborn child must be physically placed in
the home where another child was abused or neglected
would subject the newborn to substantial risk, contrary to
the purposes of the statute. Thus, a newborn still
physically in residence in the hospital may properly be
determined to “live” in the home of his or her parents for
the purposes of considering under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
101(15) whether a substantial risk of impairment exists to
that child.
In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. at 611, 635 S.E.2d at 16.
A. Challenged Findings of Fact.
1. Finding of Fact 5
¶ 17 Mother contends that several findings were unsupported by clear and
convincing evidence. She objects to portions of finding of fact 5 which suggest that
she and Father “were not complying with their case plans or Dr. Bennett’s
recommendations” when the neglect petition was filed on 22 January 2021. Mother
specifically contests the portion of finding of fact 5 which states: “Regarding their case
plans for the older two children, the parents have not followed the terms of their
parenting psychological[ ] [evaluations], they have not completed parenting classes,
and they are not involved in mental health services.”
¶ 18 Mother argues this finding is unsupported because she and Father “were
complying with several aspects of their case plans, and the record does not establish
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
that parenting classes were offered to them before the petition was filed.” We
disagree.
¶ 19 According to the record before us, the trial court did not require either parent
to enter into a new case plan for Grace, but rather it required only that the parents
continue working on the case plans entered on 23 September 2020 for their two older
children. While Mother and Father have complied with some aspects of their case
plans, “compliance with a portion of [their] case plan does not preclude a finding of
neglect.” In re N.B., 377 N.C. 349, 2021-NCSC-53, ¶ 20 (internal citation omitted).
¶ 20 Clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings that neither
Mother nor Father had complied with the recommendations of the evaluating
psychologist, Dr. Bennett. In regard to Mother, Dr. Bennett recommended she have:
(1) a psychiatric consultation to review her diagnosis and treatment, which was
scheduled for 6 October 2020, then rescheduled to 17 November 2020, with Mother
ultimately not attending the appointment; (2) counseling to treat her depression and
explore parenting behaviors that would allow her to safely care for her children, in
which Mother attended one therapy session in September 2020, but did not schedule
a follow up appointment; (3) random drug testing, which of four tests taken prior to
the petition, Mother tested positive for cannabinoid and THC once on 19 November
2020; and (4) Mother demonstrate stability in her life including having stable housing
to support caring for her children, which the testimony of social workers revealed that
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
holes were present in the home’s floors as early as 3 July 2020 and as recently as
early August 2021.
¶ 21 In regard to Father, Dr. Bennett recommended: (1) a psychiatric evaluation to
review and confirm his diagnoses and to evaluate for treatment options, which
according to Father, he completed a week and a half before the August 2021
adjudication hearing; (2) random drug testing which of the four drug screens taken
prior to the petition, Father had tested positive for THC and cannabinoid at each;
and, (3) counseling to offer Father an opportunity to explore alternative behaviors
both in parenting and in dealing with others. Ample clear and convincing evidence
demonstrates that neither parent substantially complied with Dr. Bennett’s
recommendations or the mental health services requirements of their case plans.
While record evidence supports Mother’s contention that she and Father completed
parenting classes prior to the July 2021 adjudication hearing, the classes were
completed after the filing of the petition.
¶ 22 Post-petition evidence is admissible for consideration of Grace’s best interest
in the dispositional hearing, but not in the adjudication of neglect. In re A.B., 179
N.C. App. at 609, 635 S.E.2d at 15. Notwithstanding Mother’s contentions otherwise,
the record shows that “[a] referral for the Nurturing Parenting Program . . . was
completed and sent to the Children’s Center of Northwest NC on September 23,
2020.” Therefore, we conclude clear and convincing evidence in the record supports
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
the trial court’s finding of fact 5.
2. Findings of Fact 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38
¶ 23 Next, Mother objects to findings of fact 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, and 38 because
these findings describe events that occurred after the filing of the juvenile petition
for neglect. Mother cites to this Court’s previous holding in In re V.B. that held “post-
petition evidence generally is not admissible during an adjudicatory hearing for
abuse, neglect or dependency.” 239 N.C. App. 340, 344, 768 S.E.2d 867, 869 (2015)
(cleaned up). While Mother is correct that the purpose of an adjudicatory hearing is
to determine only “the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a
petition,” the general rule that post-petition evidence is not admissible during the
adjudication hearing is “not absolute.” Id. at 344, 768 S.E.2d at 869-70. This court
has previously determined that some post-petition evidence, like that which pertains
to mental illness and paternity, does not constitute a “discrete event or one-time
occurrence.” Id. at 344, 768 S.E.2d at 870. Instead, conditions such as these have
been determined by this Court to be “fixed and ongoing circumstance[s]” so that post-
petition evidence about them is allowed to be considered in a neglect adjudication. In
re Q.M., 275 N.C. App. 34, 41, 852 S.E.2d 687, 693 (2020) (quoting In re V.B., 239
N.C. App. at 344, 768 S.E.2d at 870). Likewise, the findings Mother challenges here
relate in whole or in part to “ongoing circumstances” relevant to “the existence or
nonexistence of conditions alleged in the adjudication petition.” In re V.B., 239 N.C.
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
App. at 344, 768 S.E.2d at 869-70; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-802.
¶ 24 In finding 29, the trial court found, “the parents struggle to care for their three
children during visitation, and social workers have intervened to prevent child
injury.” The implications of this finding are based upon post-petition evidence. Here,
this finding relates to Mother and Father’s continuous difficulties in properly caring
for their children — difficulties that existed even prior to Grace’s birth. Competent
record evidence demonstrates that concerns regarding Mother and Father’s
parenting abilities had been ongoing since December 2018 when Surry County DSS
initiated an investigation alleging neglect of Grace’s older sisters. Indeed, the
petition filed by DSS contained allegations regarding the parents’ inability to care for
Grace and this contested finding is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of
conditions alleged in the petition.
¶ 25 Additionally, Mother contests finding of fact 30 which states, “Holes in the floor
of the parents’ home are safety concerns for the children, including [Grace].” Mother
also challenges a similar portion of finding of fact 32: “In addition, the injurious
environment of the parents’ home, specifically holes in the floor, creates a safety
hazard.” Again, these findings also present an ongoing circumstance of home safety
and the ongoing risk to Grace’s safety. Clear and convincing evidence in the record
demonstrates that there had been holes in the floor prior to Grace’s birth. According
to the initial neglect petition for Grace, on 3 July 2020, a social worker “observed
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
books scattered on the floor in various spots,” and asked Mother why the books were
on the floor. In response, Mother lifted one of the books for the social worker “to see
the holes at least a foot in length and 3-4 inches in width.” At that time, the social
worker “observed 2-3 holes in the bedroom and bathroom [and] [Mother] stated
[Grace’s older sibling] is walking some now and they try to keep her safe.” At the
adjudication hearing, a social worker testified about the need for repairs to the
parents’ home, citing that there were “holes in the floor as recently as last week.
[Mother] . . . reported that she fell through the floor in the kitchen. So that is a
concern.” Therefore, these findings of fact relating to the continuing risk to the child’s
safety is admissible post-petition evidence.
¶ 26 Next, Mother challenges several findings of fact addressing her and Father’s
progress on their case plans as post-petition evidence which, she argues, is generally
not admissible during an adjudicatory hearing. The trial court addressed Mother’s
and Father’s progress related to their mental health and parenting classes in findings
of fact 35 and 36. Finding of fact 35 states, “Regarding [Father’s] case plan for his
older two children he reports he will begin therapy with Monarch soon. He completed
parenting classes 7/14/2021.” Regarding Mother’s case plan for her older children,
finding of fact 36 states, “she has not completed a psychiatric evaluation, nor has she
engaged in counseling. She completed parenting classes 7/14/2021.”
¶ 27 “[D]ue to the fact that mental illness is generally not a discrete event or one-
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
time occurrence,” we find that Mother’s and Father’s failure to address their case plan
goals concerning their mental health is relevant to the parents’ ability to care for
Grace. In re V.B., 239 N.C. App. at 344, 768 S.E.2d at 870 (quoting In re A.S.R., 216
N.C. App. 182, 716 S.E.2d 440, 2011 N.C. App. LEXIS 2166, at *11 (N.C. Ct. App.
2011) (unpublished)). Thus, the post-petition evidence of both Father and Mother not
yet having begun therapy or taken measures to address their mental health concerns
at the time of the adjudication hearing was relevant to the existence or nonexistence
of conditions alleged in the petition. Therefore, we conclude these portions of the
findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and may be considered at the
adjudicatory stage.
¶ 28 Although Father and Mother finished parenting classes in July 2021, the
courses were not completed before the adjudication petition was filed, so these
portions of the findings constitute post-petition evidence. Parenting classes qualify
as a discrete occurrence that occurs over a designated period of time; therefore, this
evidence is not admissible at adjudication. Consequently, we disregard these portions
of findings 35 and 36.
¶ 29 Mother further contests findings of fact relating to her and Father’s substance
abuse and drug screenings. Finding of fact 37 states, “[Father] tested positive for
THC 9/23/2020, 10/12/2020, 11/19/2020, 11/28/2021 [sic], and 3/16/2021. He has not
been tested since his accident [on] March 23, 2021. He asserts positive screens are
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
due to his CBD use.” Finding of fact 38 states:
[Mother] tested negative 9/23/2020, 10/12/2020, 1/28/2021,
and 3/16/2021 on drug screens requested by DSS. She was
positive 11/19/2020 for THC, a DSS screen. Her screen at
[Grace’s] birth on 1/21/2021 was positive for marijuana and
opiates. She attributes the positive for THC to CBD use
and the positive for opiates to prescribed medications.
Concerning Father’s positive drug screens, we note that four of his positive drug tests
were conducted prior to the filing of the adjudication petition, and evidence thereof
may be considered at the adjudicatory stage. Likewise, Mother’s drug screens
conducted prior to the petition, including Mother’s positive test for THC at Grace’s
birth may also be considered at the adjudicatory stage of the neglect petition. As to
Father’s and Mother’s post-petition drug screens, we liken these to the admissibility
of a parent’s blood alcohol test at the adjudication stage. Powers v. Powers 130 N.C.
App. 37, 46, 502 S.E.2d 398, 403-04 (1998). Like a blood alcohol test, a drug test is a
discrete, one-time event as opposed to an ongoing condition. Therefore, the evidence
of Mother’s and Father’s post-petition drug tests is admissible at disposition, but not
at adjudication. Id.
3. Findings of Fact 32 and 33
¶ 30 Finally, Mother challenges the trial court’s findings of fact 32 and 33 that
Grace was at substantial risk of neglect. Mother argues that these contested findings
of fact should be classified as conclusions of law because the determination that Grace
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
was at risk of neglect requires the exercise of judgment. In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. at
612, 635 S.E.2d at 16 (citing In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675
(1997)). Finding of fact 32 states, “Considering the vulnerability of the young child,
the cognitive limitations of the parents, and their history of rejecting medical and
social services’ advice, there is a substantial risk of future neglect. In addition, the
injurious environment of the parents’ home, specifically holes in the floor, creates a
safety hazard.” Finding of fact 33 states, “The parents’ failure to address the terms
of their case plans for their older two children, ages one and two, specifically mental
health, creates a substantial risk of future neglect to [Grace].”
¶ 31 We agree with Mother that the above findings contain conclusions of law, but
we hold that they should more properly be characterized as ultimate findings of fact
since they are determinations of “mixed question[s] of law or fact.” In re C.A.H., 375
N.C. 750, 757, 850 S.E.2d 921, 926 (2020) (citation omitted). Further, we hold that
the supported findings of fact and evidence establish that Grace was at a substantial
risk of future harm.
¶ 32 Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that Mother and
Father failed to comply with medical and social services’ advice and failed to comply
with the terms of the case plans for their older two children such that a substantial
risk of future neglect exists for Grace. Several unchallenged findings of facts support
the trial court’s conclusion of neglect and risk of future neglect. For instance, finding
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
of fact 9 states that on 22 January 2021, Mother “left the hospital against medical
advice . . . . The child remained in the hospital without the parents.”
¶ 33 An unchallenged finding of fact states that Father
believes he is being targeted for his Nazi beliefs. In his
personality assessment, [Father] presented significant
levels of suspiciousness and paranoia. He has limited
insight and ignores medical guidance and experts. He does
not notice symptoms and hazards regarding children,
which should be noticed by a parent. He has put his
children at risk as a result, including placing a pot grinder
in his child’s crib to hide it from law enforcement, placing
a bleach bottle on his baby’s crib rail and spilling its
contents into her eyes, and being unaware of his twenty-
two[-]month old’s severe tooth decay, despite warnings
from medical professionals.
Similarly, uncontested findings state, “[Mother’s] judgment is not sound, and she does
not have the ability to protect her children. She fails to understand how her actions
impact the health and safety of her children. She ignores medical guidance and does
not notice the developmental delays of her older two children.”
¶ 34 With respect to the risk of future neglect, the trial court also made multiple
uncontested findings regarding the parents’ inability to substantially comply with
their case plans. For example, the court recognized Grace’s vulnerability relating to
her parents’ drug use: “[M]other tested positive for marijuana and opiates at the
child’s birth, 1/21/2021. She was prescribed opiates . . . . [Grace’s] umbilical cord was
positive for marijuana, oxycodone, noroxycodone, oxymorphone, and
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
noroxymorphone.” The uncontested finding also states Mother
does not understand her actions led to the loss of custody
of her older two children. She supports [Father]’s
perceptions that she and her husband are being treated
unfairly because they hold Nazi views, rather than
examining her own behaviors and actions, which caused
her children to be placed in DSS custody.
Whether another juvenile has been subjected to neglect by an adult who resides in
the home is a relevant factor, and here, uncontested findings demonstrate that the
“parents’ older two children, ages one and two, are presently in the custody of the
Stokes County Department of Social Services.” Further, the court’s uncontested
findings demonstrate Grace faced a substantial risk of neglect if placed back into the
custody of her parents at the time of the adjudication. Therefore, the clear and
convincing evidence and the unchallenged findings of fact support the conclusion of
law that Grace is a neglected juvenile at risk of future neglect.
III. Conclusion
¶ 35 Based on the reasoning above, we hold that the clear and convincing evidence
in the record supports the trial court’s adjudicatory findings of fact and that the
uncontested findings of fact and evidence support the trial court’s conclusion that
Grace is a neglected juvenile at risk of future neglect. Therefore, we affirm the trial
court’s order adjudicating Grace as a neglected juvenile.
AFFIRMED.
IN RE G.W.
2022-NCCOA-784
Opinion of the Court
Judges TYSON and CARPENTER concur.