In re J.S.C.: Consent Adjudications Not Subject to Clear, Cogent and Convincing Standard

In an opinion that I am sure surprised many, the North Carolina Court of Appeals recently delineated in the case of

In re J.S.C. ,__N.C.App.__, __S.E.2d__ (COA16-1222 (2 May 2017))

the distinction between the quantum of proof required in a consent

adjudication as opposed to an adjudication by hearing.

The case originated in New Hanover County and involved a child who had suffered significant head trauma abuse and neglect. New Hanover County DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging that the minor child was abused and neglected. On 8 August 2016, both respondents appeared in court and tendered a “Consent Order on Adjudication” which was signed by all parties and their counsel and provided further that

the parties “have stipulated and agreed to the entry of this Order which

provides for the following facts, conclusions of law and order” adjudicating [the minor child] as neglected and abused."

Following Disposition, both the parents appealed, the father later withdrawing his appeal. The mother's surviving appeal referenced one particular error: at no time either in court or through a written order did the trial court establish that the consent's findings were arrived at by "clear, cogent and convincing evidence." In the context of adjudicatory hearings, failure to make such a determination has been fatal. See

In re Church, 136 N.C. App. 654, 525 S.E.2d 478 (2000); In re D.R.B., 182 N.C. App. 733, 739, 643 S.E.2d 77, 81 (2007). However, as the Court of Appeals has pointed out, a consent adjudication is not an adjudication by merely another name.

As the court pointed out in the text of its opinion, since the consent adjudication did not engage in ". . . an adjudicatory hearing, the court did not receive or weigh evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise engage in the process of fact-finding." Accordingly, ". . . [t]he court thus had no occasion to apply the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof or any other standard." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805 on its face applies only to adjudicatory hearings, not adjudicatory consent hearings. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805. With that said, the appellate court declined  to extend  In re Church to find reversible error based on the failure of the consent adjudication order to state the evidentiary standard contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-805.