{ "id": 11242212, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: REYES, a minor child DOB: 1-22-95", "name_abbreviation": "In re Reyes", "decision_date": "2000-03-07", "docket_number": "No. COA99-743", "first_page": "812", "last_page": "815", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "136 N.C. App. 812" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "514 S.E.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. App. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11216460 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/133/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 S.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" }, { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.C. App. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525708 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" }, { "page": "301" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/75/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901-02", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-517(21)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 747", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523795 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "752", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-517(21)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0747-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231-32" }, { "page": "232" }, { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 708", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683935 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" }, { "page": "716" }, { "page": "716" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0708-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 444, "char_count": 9081, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5801715008091437e-07, "percentile": 0.8171165577607035 }, "sha256": "bf049d95b45447dada68d6893292cc6c611a9976168825508bd0ce39b02e8366", "simhash": "1:6fb8b20276be5d56", "word_count": 1449 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:36.366510+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WALKER and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: REYES, a minor child DOB: 1-22-95" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nVeronica Reyes (Appellant) appeals a 16 December 1998 order terminating her parental rights as mother of Zenaida Lis Reyes (Reyes), a minor child.\nThe evidence shows that Tabitha Smith (Smith), a child protective services worker with the Lee County Department of Social Services (Social Services), testified Social Services first came into contact with Appellant in February of 1997 when it received a referral for Reyes. At the time of the referral, Reyes was two years old, and Smith testified she \u201chad received severe and inappropriate discipline that resulted in bruising on her buttocks, thighs, face and ear.\u201d As a result of this incident, Reyes was removed from the custody of Appellant for approximately one month and was adjudicated abused and neglected in an 18 March 1997 order.\nOn 24 March 1997, Reyes was again taken into protective custody by Social Services when her four-month-old brother received a severe injury. On 25 March 1997, Reyes\u2019 brother died \u201cdue to shaken baby syndrome\u201d and Appellant later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter as a result of his death. Appellant was then incarcerated, and Reyes remained in the custody of Social Services.\nFollowing her incarceration, Appellant was allowed supervised visitation of Reyes. Smith testified Appellant did not inappropriately discipline Reyes during supervised visitation, and Appellant participated in parenting classes. Smith read into evidence the following statement, made by an instructor of the parenting classes, regarding Appellant\u2019s performance in the class:\n\u201c [Throughout this series, [Appellant\u2019s] responses to situational questions and discussions consistently involved violence. [Appellant] attempted to rationalize her responses by saying that she would handle these situations the way her mother handled them with her. Also, many of the situations that [Appellant] described as making her \u2018lose it\u2019 were everyday types of situations.\nFor example, [Appellant] said that one of the things that makes her \u2018lose it\u2019 is when her daughter, [Reyes], tells her, \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d\nSmith concluded there was a \u201cvery high probability\u201d Appellant would engage in violence towards Reyes if she was in Appellant\u2019s custody.\nAppellant testified on her own behalf that she understood the punishment Reyes had received when Appellant hit Reyes with a shoe and left bruises on her body was \u201cinappropriate,\u201d and since that time she has attended two sessions of parenting classes. She also began receiving mental health services subsequent to her release from prison and, at the time of the termination hearing, she was taking Prozac to treat depression. Appellant stated she has been attending nursing assistant classes and classes to assist her with obtaining her General Education Diploma.\nOn 16 December 1998, the trial court made the following pertinent finding of fact by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence:\n\u201c8. . . . [Reyes] is a neglected child within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-517(21), and there is a probability of the repetition of. . . neglect.\u201d\nThe trial court also incorporated into its findings of fact, by reference, an 18 March 1997 order adjudicating Reyes a neglected juvenile. The trial court then concluded as a matter of law Appellant \u201chas neglected [Reyes] within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-517(21),\u201d and \u201csufficient grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of [Appellant].\u201d Appellant\u2019s parental rights were then terminated, in pertinent part, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-289.32(2).\nThe dispositive issue is whether the trial court\u2019s findings of fact support its conclusion of law that \u201csufficient grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of [Appellant]\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-289.32(2).\nAppellant\u2019s single argument is \u201cthe trial court treated [Reyes\u2019] prior adjudication of neglect as determinative on the ultimate issue before it.\u201d We acknowledge that termination of parental rights may not be based solely upon a prior adjudication of neglect, In re Ballard, 311 N.C. 708, 714, 319 S.E.2d 227, 231-32 (1984); however, we do not agree with Appellant that the trial court treated the prior adjudication of neglect as determinative in this case.\nNeglect, within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-517(21), is one of the grounds which can support the termination of parental rights. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-239.32(2) (repealed 1999). To prove neglect in a termination case, there must be clear and convincing evidence, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-635 (repealed 1999): (1) the juvenile has not, at the time of the termination proceeding, \u201creceive[d] proper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile\u2019s parent,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-517(21); Ballard, 311 N.C. at 716, 319 S.E.2d at 232; and (2) the juvenile has sustained \u201csome physical, mental, or emotional impairment ... or [there is] a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the failure to provide \u2018proper care, supervision^] or discipline,\u2019 \u201d In re Safriet, 112 N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-02 (1993) (quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-517(21)). If there is no evidence of neglect at the time of the termination proceeding, however, parental rights may nonetheless be terminated if there is a showing of a past adjudication of neglect and the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence a probability of repetition of neglect if the juvenile were returned to her parents. Ballard, 311 N.C. at 716, 319 S.E.2d at 232. Thus, the petitioner need not present evidence of neglect subsequent to the prior adjudication of neglect. See In re Caldwell, 75 N.C. App. 299, 302, 330 S.E.2d 513, 516 (1985).\nIn this case, the trial court incorporated into its findings of fact a prior order adjudicating Reyes neglected, and the trial court found as fact \u201cthere is a probability of the repetition of... neglect.\u201d These findings of fact support the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law that \u201csufficient grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of [Appellant]\u201d pursuant to section 7A-289.32(2), and we, therefore, affirm the trial court\u2019s order terminating Appellant\u2019s parental rights.\nBecause we affirm the trial court\u2019s order terminating Appellant\u2019s parental rights pursuant to section 7A-289.32(2), we need not address Appellant\u2019s contention her parental rights were improperly terminated under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-289.32(3) and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-289.32(4).\nAffirmed.\nJudges WALKER and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.\n. We note the trial court included the neglect determination in both the findings of fact and the conclusions of law. The determination of neglect, requiring application of legal principles, is a conclusion of law. In re Everette, 133 N.C. App. 84, 86, 514 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1999).\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(1) (1999).\n. Appellant does not argue in her brief to this Court that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and we, therefore, do not address that issue. See In re Caldwell, 75 N.C. App. 299, 301, 330 S.E.2d 513, 515 (1985).\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-101(15) (1999).\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(1) (1999).\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-805 (1999).\n. Although not applicable to this case, section 7A-517(21) provides grounds for neglect in addition to the failure to receive \u201cproper care, supervision, or discipline from the juvenile\u2019s parent.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-517(21). A petitioner seeking termination of parental rights based on these additional grounds would have the burden of proving the same elements as stated in this case in the context of the portion of the statute upon which the petitioner relies.\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(2) (1999).\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-1111(a)(3) (1999).", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lee County Attorney\u2019s Office, by K.R. Hoyle, Sr. and Brenda B. White, for petitioner-appellee Lee County Department of Social Services.", "Love & Love, P.A., by Jim L. Love, Jr., for respondent-appellant.", "Harrington, Ward, Gilleland & Winstead, by Eddie S. Winstead, III, attorney advocate." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: REYES, a minor child DOB: 1-22-95\nNo. COA99-743\n(Filed 7 March 2000)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 past adjudication of neglect \u2014 probability of repetition\nThe trial court did not err in terminating respondent mother\u2019s parental rights under former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-289.32(2) because even if there is no evidence of neglect at the time of the termination proceeding, parental rights may be terminated if there is a showing of a past adjudication of neglect and the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence a probability of repetition of neglect if the juvenile were returned to her parents.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 1 December 1998 and signed 16 December 1998 by Judge Samuel S. Stephenson in Lee County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 February 2000.\nLee County Attorney\u2019s Office, by K.R. Hoyle, Sr. and Brenda B. White, for petitioner-appellee Lee County Department of Social Services.\nLove & Love, P.A., by Jim L. Love, Jr., for respondent-appellant.\nHarrington, Ward, Gilleland & Winstead, by Eddie S. Winstead, III, attorney advocate." }, "file_name": "0812-01", "first_page_order": 846, "last_page_order": 849 }