{ "id": 8301342, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF K.T.L.", "name_abbreviation": "In re K.T.L.", "decision_date": "2006-05-02", "docket_number": "No. COA05-667", "first_page": "365", "last_page": "375", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "177 N.C. App. 365" } ], "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": "617 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633690 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/617/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408", "parenthetical": "\"To the extent defendant raised arguments in his brief beyond the scope of this assignment of error, they are not properly before this Court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959393 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591", "parenthetical": "\"To the extent defendant raised arguments in his brief beyond the scope of this assignment of error, they are not properly before this Court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2562603 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3801139 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "673", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575810, 8575850, 8575823, 8575802, 8575837 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0622-02", "/nc/281/0622-05", "/nc/281/0622-03", "/nc/281/0622-01", "/nc/281/0622-04" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E.2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.C. App. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549680 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/14/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511240, 1511185, 1511322, 1511443 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0672-01", "/nc/356/0672-03", "/nc/356/0672-02", "/nc/356/0672-04" ] }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 229", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249618 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "580 S.E.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9187123 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 440", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11708491 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "693" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11091655 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0014-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 825, "char_count": 25664, "ocr_confidence": 0.737, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2254389304941433e-07, "percentile": 0.778106368363561 }, "sha256": "a232d7d3e19fd374c51b0f634f70b4097c49d8cd0532cb70c24deb721e195942", "simhash": "1:332b112a787e0ef4", "word_count": 4229 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:29.259677+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and CALABRIA concurs." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF K.T.L." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JACKSON, Judge.\nMalik Beverly (\u201cMalik\u201d), age three, was reported missing by his babysitter on 2 September 2004 shortly after 7:30 p.m. Malik, who was being cared for while his mother was at work, had been outside playing much of the afternoon with his older sister. The two had been seen playing around various homes in the trailer park, and at one point were seen pouring water from a bucket into an open septic tank in the yard of one of the trailers. This particular septic tank was damaged and did not have a proper cover. It usually was covered with a large piece of plywood with a rock on top of the plywood. K.T.L. (\u201cjuvenile\u201d), who was then eight years old, lived in the same trailer park in which Malik and his sister were playing, and he was seen playing with the two children at about 6:50 p.m. that evening.\nAfter a search of the trailer park, police and residents found Malik\u2019s body floating in the septic tank into which he previously had been seen pouring water with his sister. The septic tank had been covered by an eighteen pound piece of plywood, which had a thirty pound rock and bucket, containing about an inch of water, sitting atop the plywood. An autopsy determined that the cause of Malik\u2019s death was drowning. The autopsy revealed a bruise on the top of Malik\u2019s head which appeared to have resulted from a blunt force injury, and would not have been consistent with a fall. Malik\u2019s body also showed a scrape about two and one half inches long on the front of his stomach, which was indicative of his having been moved over a slightly rough surface, such as pavement or concrete.\nOn 3 September 2004, Dayquan Bazemore, a fifth grader at juvenile\u2019s school, was on juvenile\u2019s school bus when juvenile asked Dayquan if he had heard what happened the night before. Dayquan testified that juvenile stated that he and a little boy had been playing, and that after beginning to fight juvenile \u201cslammed him in the road.\u201d Dayquan stated that juvenile then told him that juvenile \u201cthought he was dead so I drug him over to the septic tank and threw him in.\u201d Dayquan testified that juvenile had a smile on his face while he was talking.\nMonisha Holley, also a fifth grader, was on the same bus as Dayquan and juvenile on the morning of 3 September 2004. When she boarded the bus, she asked Dayquan and juvenile if they had heard what happened the night before. Juvenile responded \u201cYes,\u201d to which Dayquan asked juvenile why he had done that to him, referring to the little boy. Juvenile told the two fifth graders that \u201cI didn\u2019t do nothing to him, I was just beating him up.\u201d Dayquan asked juvenile \u201cWell how did he die then?,\u201d to which juvenile replied, \u201cBecause I threw him in the septic tank.\u201d Monisha testified that shortly thereafter, she heard juvenile and Dayquan talking and that juvenile stated that it was funny when he threw him, referring to the little boy, into the septic tank. Monisha also stated that juvenile sometimes liked to brag to the other children, and that in the past he had threatened children on the school bus.\nOn 20 September 2004, the State issued a juvenile petition against juvenile, charging him with involuntary manslaughter in violation of North Carolina General Statutes, section 14-18. On 22 September 2004, the State called juvenile\u2019s case for a hearing, at which time juvenile and the State jointly moved that the hearing be closed. Following testimony from a detective and juvenile\u2019s mother, the trial court denied the parties\u2019 motions and ordered juvenile\u2019s hearing to be open to the public.\nAfter three days of evidence, the trial court adjudicated juvenile delinquent on 3 November 2004, finding that he had committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter. Juvenile was ordered to remain in custody pending his dispositional hearing, so that he could receive a comprehensive evaluation of his needs. On 30 November 2004 the trial court heard evidence from both parties regarding disposition, and announced that it would issue its decision by written order to be entered on 21 December 2004. Juvenile was ordered to remain in secure custody pending the entry of the disposition order.\nOn 21 December 2004, the court entered its disposition order, and ordered that juvenile be placed in the custody of Bertie County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) so that he could be placed in a Level III or IV residential treatment facility that provided 24-hour monitoring for a period not to exceed 90 days. The purpose of this placement was so that juvenile\u2019s emotional needs could be evaluated throughly, and so that the court could make a well-informed decision regarding juvenile\u2019s final disposition. Juvenile also was placed on intensive probation for one year. The court ordered the matter to be reviewed on 28 February 2005, at which time the court would be presented with the results of juvenile\u2019s evaluation, including recommendations as to treatment and placement necessary to meet juvenile\u2019s emotional needs. Juvenile appeals from both the adjudication and dispositional orders.\nWe begin by noting that juvenile asserts ten assignments of error in the record on appeal, however he presents arguments as to only four of the assignments of error in his brief. The remaining six assignments of error, for which no argument was presented, are therefore deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2005).\nIn his first assignment of error, juvenile asserts the trial court erred in finding he was delinquent, based on the State\u2019s failure to present sufficient evidence that he committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter. In order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, a juvenile may make a motion to dismiss the petition at the close of the State\u2019s evidence during the adjudicatory hearing. In re Clapp, 137 N.C. App. 14, 19, 526 S.E.2d 689, 693 (2000); In re Davis, 126 N.C. App. 64, 65-66, 483 S.E.2d 440, 441 (1997). \u201cHowever, if a defendant [or juvenile] fails to move to dismiss the action ... at the close of all the evidence, he may not challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the crime charged.\u201d N.C. R. App. 10(b)(3) (2005); see also, In re Hartsock, 158 N.C. App. 287, 291, 580 S.E.2d 395, 398 (2003); In re Lineberry, 154 N.C. App. 246, 249, 572 S.E.2d 229, 232 (2002), cert. denied, 356 N.C. 672, 577 S.E.2d 624 (2003). In the instant case, juvenile failed to make a motion to dismiss. the petition at the close of all evidence, thus waiving his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him. As juvenile has failed to preserve his right to appeal on this issue, this assignment of error is dismissed.\nJuvenile next contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to close juvenile\u2019s delinquency hearing to the public. At juvenile\u2019s first appearance on 22 September 2004, both juvenile and the State moved for the hearings to be closed to the public. After hearing testimony from juvenile\u2019s mother and a detective who invesr tigated the death of Malik Beverly, the trial court denied the parties\u2019 motions and ruled that juvenile\u2019s hearing would be open p\u00farsuant to North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2402.\nNorth Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2402 provides that all juvenile hearings will \u201cbe open to the public unless the court closes the hearing or part of the hearing for good cause, upon motion of a .party or its own motion.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2402 (2004). The trial court must consider a number of factors in determining whether good cause exists for the hearing to be closed. Factors to be considered by the court include, but are not limited to:\n(1) The nature of the allegations against the juvenile;\n(2) The age and maturity of the juvenile;\n(3) The benefit to the juvenile of confidentiality;\n(4) The benefit to the public of an open hearing; and\n(5) The extent to which the confidentiality of the juvenile\u2019s file will be compromised by an open hearing.\nId. The decision to close a juvenile hearing to the public is one that lies within the discretion of the trial court. In re Potts, 14 N.C. App. 387, 391-92, 188 S.E.2d 643, 646, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E.2d 471 (1972). An abuse of discretion will be found only \u201c \u2018where the court\u2019s ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u2019 \u201d State v. Campbell, 359 N.C. 644, 673, 617 S.E.2d 1, 19 (2005) (quoting State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)).\nDuring the hearing on juvenile\u2019s motion to close the hearings to the public, the detective, who investigated and handled the case involving the death of Malik Beverly, stated that there were approximately seventy-five people who lived in the trailer park where Malik\u2019s body was found. He stated that the circumstances surrounding Malik\u2019s death had become known within the community, and that the death and details surrounding it had been reported by both the local television and print media. After the petition had been drawn charging juvenile with the offense, the detective received numerous calls from citizens in the community asking about the case and saying that they had heard about it on the news. The detective also stated that juvenile lives in the trailer park where Malik\u2019s body was found. Juvenile\u2019s mother, who presented brief testimony during the hearing, stated that she likely would not return juvenile to the public school once he is released.\nFollowing the testimony, the trial court made detailed findings of fact concerning the facts of the case, the media coverage of it, and the fact that the general public in the community is not only aware of the case, but also that juvenile has been charged with killing Malik. The court went on to conclude as a matter of law, that it had considered each of the factors listed in North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2402, and that after weighing the factors, there was insufficient cause to close juvenile\u2019s hearing and good cause existed to keep the hearing open to the public. We hold the trial court conducted a thorough hearing on the issue as to whether or not to close juvenile\u2019s hearing, in that the court heard arguments from both parties and testimony from the detective and juvenile\u2019s mother. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court exercised its discretion and denied the parties\u2019 motions. We hold that the trial court\u2019s ruling is not one that is manifestly unsupported or arbitrary, and as such, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying parties\u2019 motions to close juvenile\u2019s hearings to the public.\nFinally, juvenile argues he was confined unlawfully and that the trial court\u2019s 21 December 2004 dispositional order should be vacated. Juvenile\u2019s assignment of error on this issue states that \u201c[t]he trial court erred when it ordered the juvenile detained pending appeal and/or other placement.\u201d The assignment of error specifically references only the 21 December 2004 dispositional order, in which the trial court ordered juvenile to be placed in the custody of DSS, with placement in a residential treatment facility for no more than ninety days, and that pending this placement, juvenile was to remain in secure custody.\nOn appeal, juvenile address three separate instances of confinement in his brief, and presents arguments that each of them was unlawful. Specifically, juvenile contends that he was subjected to three separate instances of unlawful confinement: (1) from the trial court\u2019s' 3 November 2004 adjudication order until the 30 November 2004 dispositional hearing; (2) from the 30 November 2004 disposi-tional hearing until the entry of the court\u2019s 21 December 2004 dispo-sitional order; and (3) from the entry of 21 December 2004 disposi-tional order until the 28 February 2005 review hearing: As juvenile\u2019s assignment of error only addresses the third instance of confinement, the confinement from the entry of the 21 December 2004 disposition order until the 28 February 2005 review hearing, the issues of juvenile\u2019s confinement post-adjudication and leading up to the entry of the dispositional order are beyond the scope of juvenile\u2019s assignment of error. Therefore, we hold juvenile has failed to preserve his appeal on the prior instances of confinement, and the issues of juvenile\u2019s confinement prior to the entry of the dispositional order are not properly before this Court. N.C. R. App. R 10(a) (2005) (\u201cthe scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal\u201d); State v. Wiggins, 161 N.C. App. 583, 591, 589 S.E.2d 402, 408 (2003) (\u201cTo the extent defendant raised arguments in his brief beyond the scope of this assignment of error, they are not properly before this Court.\u201d). Thus, we need only address juvenile\u2019s confinement following the entry of the disposi-tional order.\nOn 21 December 2004, the trial court entered a \u201cLevel! and Level II Delinquency Disposition Order\u201d stating, inter alia, that: (1) juvenile was to be placed on intensive probation for one year, terminating on 21 December 2005; (2) juvenile was to be placed in the custody of DSS; (3) juvenile was to be placed in a Level III or IV residential treatment facility that provides twenty-four-hour monitoring for a period not to exceed ninety days, in order for his emotional needs to be evaluated; (4) pending placement in the residential treatment facility, juvenile was to be retained in secure custody pursuant to section 7B-1903(c); (5) at a review hearing to be held 28 February 2005, the court was to be provided with the results of juvenile\u2019s evaluation and recommendations as to placement necessary to meet juvenile\u2019s emotional needs; and (6) juvenile was ordered to complete fifty hours of community service, remain on good behavior and not violate any laws, not possess any firearms, and submit to warrantless searches for firearms at reasonable times.\nThe offense for which juvenile was adjudicated delinquent was involuntary manslaughter, a Class F offense, which is considered a \u201cserious\u201d offense pursuant to our Juvenile Code. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(a)(2) (2004). The trial court found that juvenile had no prior history of delinquency, and that based on the provisions of section 7B-2507, juvenile\u2019s delinquency history level was determined to be low. Therefore, pursuant to section 7B-2508(f), juvenile could be sentenced under either a Level 1 or Level 2 disposition. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(f) (2004).\n' Level 2 dispositions, as provided for by section 7B-2508(d), allow a trial court, with jurisdiction over a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and found to be subject to' a Level 2 disposition, to\nprovide for evaluation and treatment under [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7] 7B-2502 and for any of the dispositional alternatives contained in subdivisions (1) through (23) of [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7] 7B-2506, but shall provide for at least one of the intermediate dispositions authorized in subdivisions (13) through (23) of [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7] 7B-2506.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(d) (2004). North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2506 provides numerous dispositional alternatives from which a court may choose once a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent. See, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506 (2004). Specifically, section 7B-2506(l)(c) provides as one dispositional alternative available to the trial court:\nIn the case of any juvenile who needs more adequate care or supervision or who needs placement, the judge may:\nc. Place the juvenile in the custody of the department of social services in the county of his residence .... An order placing a juvenile in the custody or placement responsibility of a county department of social services shall contain a finding that the juvenile\u2019s continuation in the juvenile\u2019s own home would be contrary to the juvenile\u2019s best interest. This placement shall be reviewed in accordance with [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7] 7B-906.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506(l)(c) (2004). Section 7B-906 provides that in all cases \u201cwhere custody is removed from a parent. . . the court shall conduct a review hearing within 90 days from the date of the disposi-tional hearing . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-906(a) (2004).\nIn the present case, the trial court\u2019s detailed dispositional order removed custody of juvenile from his parents, and placed him in the custody of DSS. The trial court did so based on its finding that it was contrary to juvenile\u2019s best interest for him to return home at the time, and the fact that his parents were not willing to authorize his placement in a facility that provided twenty-four-hour monitoring so that he could obtain further evaluation. The trial court found that when placed in the custody of DSS, DSS would then have the authority to authorize and consent to juvenile\u2019s placement for further evaluation of his emotional needs. Upon removing juvenile from the custody of his parents and granting custody to DSS, the trial court ordered a review hearing to be held on 28 February 2005, at which time juvenile\u2019s emotional needs would be assessed and the court would determine if further treatment was needed. We hold the trial court was authorized to grant custody of juvenile to DSS for purposes of obtaining necessary evaluation and treatment pursuant to section 7B-2506(l)(c), and further, the trial court complied with the requirements of section 7B-906 by ordering that a review hearing take place within ninety days of the 30 November 2004 dispositional hearing.\nSimilarly, juvenile\u2019s placement in a Level III or IV residential treatment facility also was authorized by statute, and the court was permitted to order this type of dispositional alternative. North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2506(14) provides that when a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent, a trial court may \u201c[o]rder the juvenile to cooperate with placement in a residential treatment facility, an intensive nonresidential treatment program, an intensive substance abuse program, or in a group home other than a multipurpose group home operated by a State agency.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506(14) (2004). In the instant case, the court found that juvenile had a history of aggressive behavior directed at younger children, and that a facility that offered twenty-four-hour monitoring would ensure that juvenile did not cause any further harm to other children. Thus, upon finding that juvenile posed a high risk to re-offend, and that he needed an extensive emotional evaluation to determine if he required a clinical diagnosis, the trial court had valid reason to order juvenile placed in a residential treatment facility that would provide the evaluation and treatment that he needed. As section 7B-2506(14) permitted this type of dispositional alternative, we hold the trial court did not commit error in ordering juvenile\u2019s placement in a residential treatment facility.\nJuvenile argues that the trial court was not permitted to order his confinement for a period longer than fourteen days. Juvenile\u2019s argument, is misplaced. North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2506(20) provides that a juvenile may \u201cbe confined in an approved juvenile detention facility for a term of up to 14 24-hour periods.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506(20) (2004). This section of the statute is inapplicable to juvenile\u2019s case, as juvenile was not ordered to be confined in a juvenile detention facility, and was instead ordered to be placed in a residential treatment facility. As such, juvenile\u2019s argument on this basis fails.\nOn 21 December 2004, the same day the trial court entered the dispositional order, the court also entered a \u201cTemporary Order Affecting Custody and Placement,\u201d which provided for juvenile\u2019s custody and placement pending the appeal of his disposition order. This temporary order, in all material aspects, was identical to the court\u2019s dispositional order. We hold the temporary order, which also ordered juvenile to remain in custody of DSS and to be placed in a residential treatment facility for ninety days for evaluation purposes, was authorized pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, section 7B-2605. Section 7B-2605 provides that:\nPending disposition of an appeal, the release of the juvenile, with or without conditions, should issue in every case unless the court orders otherwise. For compelling reasons which must be stated in writing, the court may enter a temporary order affecting the custody or placement of the juvenile as the court finds to be in the best interests of the juvenile or the State.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2605 (2004). In the instant case, the trial court made, in writing, specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, stating that it was not in juvenile\u2019s best interest to return home at the present time, and that it was in his best interest to be placed in a residential treatment facility where he would receive the evaluation and treatment he needed. The court stated that juvenile\u2019s parents were unwilling to consent to the level of evaluation juvenile needed, and that it therefore was necessary that DSS be granted custody of juvenile. We hold the trial court acted properly in entering its temporary order which stated compelling reasons authorizing, pending appeal of his disposition order, DSS to be granted custody of juvenile and his placement in a residential treatment facility.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and CALABRIA concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "JACKSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General M. Lynne Weaver, for the State.", "Sofie W. Hosford, for juvenile-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF K.T.L.\nNo. COA05-667\n(Filed 2 May 2006)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to argue\nThe six assignments of error that respondent juvenile failed to argue in his brief are deemed abandoned under N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 challenge to sufficiency of evidence \u2014 failure to make motion to dismiss at close of all evidence\nAlthough respondent juvenile contends the trial court erred by finding him to be delinquent based upon his contention that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter, this assignment of error is dismissed because the juvenile failed to make a motion' to dismiss the petition at the close of all evidence, thus waiving his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him.\n3. Juveniles\u2014 delinquency \u2014 denial of motion to close hearing to public \u2014 no showing of good cause\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent juvenile\u2019s motion to close his delinquency hearing to the public, because: (1) the court made detailed findings of fact concerning the facts of the case, the media coverage of it, and the fact that the general public in the community was not only aware of the case, but also that the then eight-year-old juvenile had been charged with killing a three-year-old child; (2) the court conducted a thorough hearing on the issue as to whether to close the juvenile\u2019s hearing when it heard arguments from both parties and testimony from a detective and the juvenile\u2019s mother; and (3) the court\u2019s ruling is not one that is manifestly unsupported or arbitrary.\n4. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to assign error\nAlthough respondent juvenile contends that he was subjected to three separate instances of unlawful confinement, the juvenile failed to preserve his appeal on the two prior instances of confinement because his assignment of error only addresses the third instance of confinement from the entry of the 21 December 2004 disposition order until 28 February 2005.\n5. Juveniles\u2014 delinquency \u2014 lawfulness of confinement\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency case arising out of the charge of involuntary manslaughter by concluding that respondent juvenile was not unlawfully confined pending appeal and/or other placement based on a 21 December 2004 dispositional order, because: (1) the trial court was authorized to grant custody of the juvenile to DSS for purposes of obtaining necessary evaluation and treatment pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2506(l)(c), and further, the trial court complied with the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-906 by ordering that a review hearing take place within ninety days of the 30 November 2004 dispositional hearing; (2) the juvenile\u2019s placement in a Level III or IV residential treatment facility was authorized by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2506(14), and the court was permitted to order this type of dispositional alternative when the court found the juvenile had a history of aggressive behavior directed at younger children and that a facility that offered twenty-four-hour monitoring would ensure that he did not cause any further harm to other children; (3) although the juvenile contends the court was not permitted to order his confinement for a period longer than fourteen days, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2506(20) does not apply since he was not ordered to be confined in a juvenile detention facility but instead was ordered to be placed in a residential treatment facility; and (4) the temporary order entered on the same day as the 21 December 2004 disposition order which also ordered the juvenile to remain in custody of DSS and to be placed in a residential treatment facility for ninety days for evaluation purposes was authorized under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2605 when the juvenile\u2019s parents were unwilling to consent to the level of evaluation and treatment necessary.\nAppeal by juvenile respondent from orders entered 3 November 2004 and 21 December 2004 by Judge Alfred W. Kwasikpui in Bertie County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 December 2005.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General M. Lynne Weaver, for the State.\nSofie W. Hosford, for juvenile-appellant." }, "file_name": "0365-01", "first_page_order": 399, "last_page_order": 409 }