To support an adjudication of neglect, a trial court’s findings of fact must show “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.” In re Stumbo, 357 N.C. 279, 283, 582 S.E.2d 255, 258 (2003). Absent such a nexus between the child's condition and either actually neglectful acts of commission or acts of omission which will most certainly lead to a child being neglected, an insufficient factual basis exists to adjudicate a child. The recent case of In re J.A.M., __N.C.App__,__S.E.2d__( COA16-563, December 20, 2016) illustrates this principle.
In J.A.M., the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Services Division (“YFS”) received a report concerning the new-born minor child on the date of February 24, 2016. An assigned social worker went to Respondent-mother’s home where the worker found the Respondent-mother’s home appropriate and that J.A.M. seemed to be healthy and well cared for. Notwithstanding this, the worker was advised of a long history of child protective services involvement between social services and the family. Based solely upon the parents’ prior histories with YFS (which included, among other things, reports of domestic violence between the parents), the social worker developed a Safety Assessment in an attempt to determine whether previous issues and concerns about the family had been addressed. Predictably, the parents refused to sign the safety plan which then led YFS to file a juvenile petition and seek non-secure custody over the minor child. The efforts of YSF were initially fruitful, even to the point to which the minor child was adjudicated neglected. effort in which they were successful.
Several interesting facts were noted by the Court of Appeals. First, the Respondent-Mother denied any on-going domestic violence in the home and YFS never provided any proof to the contrary. Second, at the time of the adjudication, the Respondent-mother and the father of the child were not only not living together but were also no longer in a relationship.
Predictably, the Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication of neglect. While history is very often a solid basis for predicting future behavior, it is not a fool-proof prognosticator: people can change. Thus while history may be important in establishing that more recent acts of neglect are not simply a one-time occurrence, without evidence of neglect in the hear and now of the juvenile petition time frame, whether it is by creating conditions likely to actually to lead to neglect or the perpetuation of an act of neglect upon a child, the Petitioner simply fails to meet the evidentiary burden.This is what happened in this case and this should be a clear warning to social services agencies across North Carolina that routinely take new-born children into custody based on prior child protective services involvement with the new-born child's sibling or siblings.
