Many juvenile cases involve the
issue of lack of appropriate housing for children. Whether a parent, guardian,
caretaker or custodian is homeless, is intransigent, or the home which they
maintain does not meet minimum community standards, where a child lacks access
to appropriate and safe housing prior to the filing of a juvenile petition, an
allegation of neglect is often appropriate.
However, not every case where a
child lacks access to appropriate housing merits a juvenile petition. It is always
important and necessary when evaluating whether a child’s housing needs are
being met to ascertain whether there is a nexus between a child’s living
situation and decisions made by a parent, guardian, caretaker or custodian
regarding that living situation. To this end where the child is forced to live in
substandard conditions or in conditions due to poor decisions made by those
providing care for child and where the child is expose to perpetual
impermanence, homelessness or exposure to household conditions that are below
minimum community standards such a nexus will be readily found and a juvenile
petition alleging neglect is necessary to protect the child from further bad
decision-making.
The situation is altogether different where a child’s poor housing situation
is the result of involuntarily circumstances, poverty, or misfortune. North
Carolina law is clear that mere poverty (including homelessness) standing
alone, is not an appropriate basis for alleging neglect based on improper care
or the existence of an injurious environment. (See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2)). Rather, the Juvenile Code requires, outside of
evidence that the child lacks appropriate housing, that there be something
more, to wit, that there be evidence that decisions made by those who take care
of a child are directly responsible for the child’s lack of appropriate housing
resources. (See e.g. In re Black, 76 N.C. App. 106, 332
S.E.2d 85 (1985)). This evidentiary inquiry can take two distinct directions.
First, given that the child is living in inappropriate conditions, it must be
asked whether a parent, guardian, caretaker or custodian has sought out different
accommodations for the child. In such a case, such as where those providing
care for a child voluntarily place a child in a relative or kinship placement
that is safe and appropriate to meet the child’s needs prior to a juvenile
petition being filed, there will not be a basis for a court to find that the
child is neglected, at least with regard to the housing issue. S=3 However, if
those who provide care for a child refuse to look for an alternative placement
for the child while they are homeless, or where the county department of social
services is required to locate a relative or kinship placement and where the
child is placed in such a home at the behest of the agency, then it is still
possible for a Juvenile Court to find the child neglected.
Thus in a case where a mother placed a juvenile in a voluntary kinship
arrangement with maternal grandparents prior to a county department of social
services filing a juvenile petition at the urging of the DSS and where the
conditions of the Mother did not improve but posed a continued risk of harm to
the child if the child were to return to her care, the Appellate Court affirmed
an adjudication of neglect where the trial court considered the conditions surrounding
the child as they exist at the time of the adjudication. (See In re K.J.D., 203 N.C. App. 653, 692
S.E.2d 437 (2010)). However, in another case where a homeless mother placed a
child with a third party without input from the DSS, the court reversed a trial
court’s adjudication of neglect, noting also that there was no evidence that
suggested on-going risk to the child. (See In
re B.P., __N.C. App.__, __S.E.2d__(January 16, 2018)).
