{ "id": 4157932, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: B.W., A Minor Child", "name_abbreviation": "In re B.W.", "decision_date": "2008-05-06", "docket_number": "No. COA07-1579", "first_page": "328", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "190 N.C. App. 328" } ], "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": "623 S.E.2d 45", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634685 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 S.E.2d 890", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631961 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "893" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/603/0890-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 N.C. App. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12631961, 8413444 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/603/0890-01", "/nc-app/166/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "641 S.E.2d 404", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637854 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" }, { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/641/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "638 S.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637349 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240", "parenthetical": "\"[E]rroneous findings unnecessary to the determination do not constitute reversible error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/638/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638413 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "594" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "646 S.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638847 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "545", "parenthetical": "quotation omitted" }, { "page": "545" }, { "page": "545", "parenthetical": "quotation and alteration omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/646/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8350019 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "567 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "229", "parenthetical": "citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9082328 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737", "parenthetical": "citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 L. Ed. 2d 673", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "538 U.S. 982", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9062083, 9061796, 9061898, 9062027, 9061947, 9061618, 9061298, 9061501, 9061750, 9061463, 9061849, 9061563, 9061533, 9061375 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/538/0982-14", "/us/538/0982-09", "/us/538/0982-11", "/us/538/0982-13", "/us/538/0982-12", "/us/538/0982-07", "/us/538/0982-01", "/us/538/0982-04", "/us/538/0982-08", "/us/538/0982-03", "/us/538/0982-10", "/us/538/0982-06", "/us/538/0982-05", "/us/538/0982-02" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 608", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511544, 1511451, 1511636, 1511574 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0163-01", "/nc/356/0163-02", "/nc/356/0163-03", "/nc/356/0163-04" ] }, { "cite": "561 S.E.2d 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" }, { "page": "567" }, { "page": "564" }, { "page": "564", "parenthetical": "holding that a parent enjoys no Fifth Amendment privilege in a juvenile proceeding" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9131717 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766" }, { "page": "766" }, { "page": "761" }, { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 S.E.2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346", "parenthetical": "holding that such \"mislabeling is merely an inconvenience to the courts\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4729581 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352", "parenthetical": "holding that such \"mislabeling is merely an inconvenience to the courts\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.C. App. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8168382 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60" }, { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/182/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "491 S.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11798267 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "510", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "521 S.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127", "parenthetical": "noting that, when a newborn child is removed from the home for abuse or neglect, the court's assessment of the risk of future abuse of neglect \"must of necessity be predictive in nature\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241043 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396", "parenthetical": "noting that, when a newborn child is removed from the home for abuse or neglect, the court's assessment of the risk of future abuse of neglect \"must of necessity be predictive in nature\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525909 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N.C. App. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8243658 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547", "parenthetical": "\"[E]rroneous findings unnecessary to the determination do not constitute reversible error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/180/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8998657 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "511" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8202464 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8203320 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323", "parenthetical": "quotation omitted" }, { "page": "323" }, { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0315-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1046, "char_count": 26682, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9645285875341493e-07, "percentile": 0.738534949334884 }, "sha256": "c73309fcf06b706261cad8cbf08d62eea53ea515c8de1bf30fe7fa7c24922926", "simhash": "1:c3a93d66dc9a96c4", "word_count": 4288 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:45.332452+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and McCULLOUGH concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: B.W., A Minor Child" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nRespondent K.P., mother of the minor child B.W., appeals from an order adjudicating the child an abused and neglected juvenile and ceasing efforts.to reunify him with his parents. Respondent-father S.W. is not a party to this appeal.\nFacts and Procedural History\nThe Catawba County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained non-secure custody of B.W. on 11 May 2007, after an examination at Frye Medical Center revealed injuries consistent with child abuse, including cuts, bruises, bite marks, a fractured skull, and multiple rib and leg fractures of varying ages. The minor child was less than eight weeks old and had been in his parents\u2019 care since leaving the hospital after his premature birth at thirty-six weeks\u2019 gestation. DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging abuse and neglect on 11 May 2007.\nAt an adjudicatory hearing held 27 August 2007, respondents stipulated that B.W. had suffered \u201ca skull fracture and multiple fractures of varying ages to his ribs and legs[,]\u201d as alleged by DSS. They further stipulated the following:\nIt is the opinion of Dr. David Berry of Frye Regional Medical Center, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries occurred on multiple occasions and were caused by chest squeezing and rough handling of [the] minor child. Dr. Berry has noted that these findings are suggestive of abuse. The parents have related no events which could have caused the child\u2019s injuries.\nThe minor child is the only child of his parents and has been in their care and custody since [he] was bom. Ms. Pearl Morton, a relative of the father, is the only other person residing in the dwelling. The parents report that [she] occasionally has acted as caretaker for the child.\nAt present, the parents of the minor child do not have their own independent stable housing. The parents and child had been residing in [Morton\u2019s] home ....\nBased on these undisputed findings, the court concluded that the minor child was abused and neglected within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(1), (15) (2007).\nAt disposition, the court heard testimony from forensic psychologist Dr. H.D. Kilpatrick, an expert in child custody and maltreatment who performed forensic evaluations of the parents; pediatric nurse practitioner Elizabeth Osbahr, FNP, (Ms. Osbahr) who examined B.W. at the Children\u2019s Advocacy Center; DSS investigator Shannon Roberts; and L.P. (the grandmother), B.W.\u2019s maternal grandmother. The court received written reports from Dr. Kilpatrick, Ms. Osbahr, DSS and the.Guardian ad Litem, as well as the minor child\u2019s medical records from Frye Regional Medical Center. Neither parent testified. Counsel for respondent-father informed the court that she had advised her client not to testify, in light of the criminal charges pending against him.\nIn its dispositional findings, the court described the multiple injuries observable on B.W. at the time DSS received a child protective services report on 10 May 2007. The court found that the parents \u201cdeclined having knowledge of these abrasions and bruising, . . . except for the cut on the nose which reportedly occurred when the father dropped a telephone on the less-than-two-month-old child\u2019s head.\u201d It then listed the child\u2019s internal injuries, including a \u201cclosed fracture of the skull, subarachnoid subdural and extradural hemorrhage,\u201d posterior fractures of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs and anterior fractures of the 4th, 5th, and 6th ribs of varying ages, a closed fracture of the upper tibia, and a fractured fibula. The court noted that the minor child was also diagnosed \u201cto be malnourished, underweight, and to suffer from Failure to Thrive,\u201d and that he \u201cdemonstrated a pain response to palpations of the chest and skull.\u201d The medical evidence was found by the court to be \u201cconsistent with B[.W.] having suffered physical abuse on multiple occasions.\u201d\nBased on the results of their psychological evaluations, the court found that \u201c[n] either parent acknowledged or suggested that B.[W.] had experienced pain or suffering\u201d as a result of his injuries. Nor had either parent expressed empathy or concern for the child at any time during their respective interviews with Dr. Kilpatrick. The psychological tests administered to the parents failed to \u201cdisclose any valid results as a result of the parents\u2019 attempt to present themselves in the most favorable light.\u201d In addition to describing respondent as \u201ccomplacent and nonreactive\u201d to questions about the nature and source of B.W.\u2019s injuries, Dr. Kilpatrick averred \u201cthat the flat affect, and lack of empathy, [and] the defensive and inconsistent responses were problematic for both parents.\u201d Deeming \u201cnot viable\u201d any \u201csuggestion that B[.W.] did not suffer pain and that his injuries were caused by someone other than either parent[,]\u201d the court found that \u201cefforts to reunify B.[W.] with the . . . parents would clearly be futile and inconsistent with [his] health, safety and need for a permanent home[.]\u201d\nThe court ordered that B.W. remain in DSS custody and approved his continued placement with his foster family. Concluding that \u201c[t]he injuries sustained by this child constitute aggravated circumstances as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2) [(2007),]\u201d and that \u201c[fjurther efforts to reunify the child with either parent would clearly be futile and inconsistent with [his] need for a safe permanent home with in [sic] a reasonable period of time[,]\u201d the court ordered that further efforts to reunify B.W. with the parents cease. It separately found that placing the minor child with his maternal grandparents would be \u201ccontrary to [his] best interest^]\u201d in light of \u201cthe parents\u2019 and grandparents\u2019 unwillingness to consider or explain the source of the [child\u2019s] injuries.\u201d The court noted that such a placement would also \u201cplace [] the maternal grandparents in the untenable position of having to exclude their daughter from their home for the next seventeen and a half years in order to provide any hope of safety to this child.\u201d Respondent appeals.\nRespondent raises three issues on appeal: (I) Whether the trial court\u2019s findings numbered 29, 30, 34 and 35 are supported by competent evidence; (II) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to place the child with the maternal grandparents; and (III) Whether the trial court\u2019s conclusion to cease reunification efforts is supported by competent evidence. For the reasons given below, we affirm the order of the trial court.\nI\nOn appeal, respondent challenges four of the district court\u2019s dis-positional findings of fact. Under the Juvenile Code, the court must support its disposition in an abuse and neglect proceeding with \u201cappropriate findings[,]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-905 (2007), based on \u201ccredible evidence presented at the hearing.\u201d In re K.S., 183 N.C. App. 315, 323, 646 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2007) (quotation omitted). \u201cThe standard of review that applies to an assignment [of error] challenging a dispositional finding is whether the finding is supported by competent evidence.\u201d In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 212, 644 S.E.2d 588, 593 (2007) (citations omitted). A finding based upon competent evidence is \u201c \u2018binding on appeal, even if there is evidence which would support a finding to the contrary.\u2019 \u201d K.S., 183 N.C. App. at 323, 646 S.E.2d at 545 (quoting In re J.S., 165 N.C. App. 509, 511, 598 S.E.2d 658, 660 (2004)).\nRespondent first excepts to finding number 29 that \u201c[t]he parents have been indicted for felony child abuse charges\u201d as a result of B.W.\u2019s injuries. She riotes that the court heard no evidence regarding such charges, which were \u201cmentioned for the first time\u201d by respondent-father\u2019s counsel. The transcript reflects that the father\u2019s counsel asked the court not to cease reunification efforts prior to the resolution of the \u201ccriminal trial that\u2019s getting ready to occur.\u201d The court then engaged counsel in the following exchange:\nTHE COURT: In \u2014 in\u2014in where, ma\u2019am? In what?\n[COUNSEL]: They have been indicted.\nTHE COURT: They who?\n[COUNSEL]: The parents.\nTHE COURT: Your parents, the parents that you and [respondent\u2019s counsel] represent?\n[COUNSEL]: Yes.\nTHE COURT: Have criminal charges pending? Is that what you\u2019re saying?\n[COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.\nRespondent\u2019s own counsel later reiterated the fact of the parents\u2019 indictment in his argument to the court, as follows:\n[W]e think it\u2019s way too early in the process to cease [re]unification of the parents. . . . They \u2014 they have been indicted. You know who knows how long it\u2019ll be before that case is actually tried or dealt with in Superior Court[.]\nWe agree with respondent \u201cthat statements by an attorney are not considered evidenced\u201d K.S., 183 N.C. App. at 323, 646 S.E.2d at 545 (quotation and alteration omitted), and that no evidence regarding the indictments was introduced at the hearing. Assuming, arguendo, that her counsel did not stipulate to the existence of the indictments, however, we do not believe that the court\u2019s unsupported finding on this issue was necessary to its disposition. In re T.M., 180 N.C. App. 539, 547, 638 S.E.2d 236, 240 (2006) (\u201c[E]rroneous findings unnecessary to the determination do not constitute reversible error.\u201d). The court made the additional, uncontested finding that \u201c[t]he suggestion that . . . [B.W.\u2019]s injuries were caused by someone other than either parent here today is not viable.\u201d Accordingly, because any error by the court was harmless, we overrule this assignment of error. Id.; In re Beck, 109 N.C. App. 539, 548, 428 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1993).\nRespondent challenges the following portion of dispositional finding number 35: \u201cPlacement with the relatives is not indicated due to the parents\u2019 and the grandparents\u2019 unwillingness to consider or explain the source of the [child\u2019s] injuries.\u201d She contends that \u201c[t]he evidence does not show what the grandparents really thought about the source of B.W.\u2019s injuries[,]\u201d and that the grandmother\u2019s testimony evinced a \u201cwillingfness] to consider a potential source of the injuries[.]\u201d In a related claim, respondent asserts that the evidence did not support a portion of finding number 30 \u2014 that placing B.W. in the home of his maternal grandparents would leave the grandparents \u201cin the untenable position of having to exclude their daughter from their home for the next seventeen and a half years in order to provide any hope of safety to the child.\u201d Respondent argues that a placement with the grandparents was not shown to be \u201cuntenable[,]\u201d inasmuch as the grandmother testified she was willing to keep B.W.\u2019s parents away from the child and that she and her husband were otherwise prepared to care for their grandson.\nWe find sufficient competent evidence to support the court\u2019s finding that the grandparents were unwilling to acknowledge the nature and source of B.W.\u2019s injuries. The grandmother testified that she visited B.W. three to five times per week before he was taken into DSS custody and saw him two days before he was examined at Frye Medical Center on 10 May 2007. Other than a \u201clittle scratch on his leg\u201d caused by a car seat, the grandmother claimed to have \u201cnever seen any injuries on B[.W.] None.\u201d She further claimed that the child \u201cnever acted like he had anything wrong with him\u201d and displayed \u201cno physical evidence\u201d of abuse at any time. The grandmother had \u201cno idea\u201d how the child had sustained multiple bone fractures and \u201cc[ould ]not imagine\u201d that respondent or the father had injured the child. When asked if she believed B.W. had experienced the injuries recorded in his medical records [,] the grandmother responded, \u201cI\u2019m not really sure. I \u2014 I was told so many different stories every time we would go to see him, ... I don\u2019t know.\u201d Asked specifically if she believed the child had a fractured skull, broken leg, or broken ribs, the grandmother replied that she did not \u201cknow what to believe.\u201d Although the court did not hear separately from the grandfather, there is no indication that he held a view contrary to the grandmother\u2019s as to the child\u2019s injuries or respondent\u2019s responsibility therefor.\nWe further find competent evidence to support finding number 30 that the grandparents would be unlikely to deny respondent access to B.W., over time, if the child was placed in their home. The grandmother acknowledged that respondent and S. W. moved into her home after DSS took custody of B.W. and remained there until DSS required their departure as a condition of the grandparents\u2019 home study. As discussed above, the grandmother refused to credit the overwhelming medical evidence of B.W.\u2019s injuries and insisted that the child had \u201cnever\u201d shown any sign of injury or distress at the time DSS assumed custody. Although finding number 30 was predictive insofar as it assessed the \u201cuntenable\u201d nature of a hypothetical placement with the grandparents, we cannot say it lacked evidentiary support. Cf. In re McLean, 135 N.C. App. 387, 396, 521 S.E.2d 121, 127 (1999) (noting that, when a newborn child is removed from the home for abuse or neglect, the court\u2019s assessment of the risk of future abuse of neglect \u201cmust of necessity be predictive in nature\u201d).\nRespondent next contests the court\u2019s finding number 34 that \u201c[t]he injuries received by B[.W.] constitute aggravated factors as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. [\u00a7] 7B-201.\u201d Respondent argues that the purported finding of fact is actually a conclusion of law. Moreover, she contends that B.W.\u2019s injuries were not \u201cchronic or torturous,\u201d and thus did not satisfy the statutory standard for aggravated circumstances under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2). We note that the court\u2019s finding mistakenly refers to \u201cfactors [,]\u201d rather than \u201ccircumstances[,]\u201d as used in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2), and cites to an inapposite statute dealing with the court\u2019s jurisdiction, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-201. In dispositional conclusion number 5, however, the court corrects these errors, stating, \u201c[t]he injuries suffered by this child constitute aggravated circumstances as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. [\u00a7] 7B-101(2).\u201d\nAs a general rule, \u201cany determination requiring the exercise of judgment ... or the application of legal principles ... is more properly classified a conclusion of law.\u201d In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997) (citations omitted). However, our appellate courts have repeatedly found a trial court\u2019s mis-classification of a conclusion of law as a finding of fact, or vice versa, to be \u201cinconsequential.\u201d In re R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. 52, 60, 641 S.E.2d 404, 409 (2007); see also State ex rel. Utilities Comm v. Eddleman, 320 N.C. 344, 352, 358 S.E.2d 339, 346 (1987) (holding that such \u201cmislabeling is merely an inconvenience to the courts\u201d). If a contested \u201cfinding\u201d is more accurately characterized as a conclusion of law, we simply apply the appropriate standard of review and determine whether the remaining facts found by the court support the conclusion. R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. at 60, 641 S.E.2d at 409 (quoting In re M.R.D.C., 166 N.C. App. 693, 697, 603 S.E.2d 890, 893 (2004)). Here, the court\u2019s classification of finding number 34 is particularly inconsequential, inasmuch as it reiterated this finding as dispositional conclusion of law number 5.\nThe Juvenile Code defines an aggravated circumstance as \u201c[a]ny circumstance attending to the commission of an act of abuse or neglect which increases its enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, including, but not limited to, abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2) (2007). The determination that a given set of facts meets a statutorily imposed standard is properly reviewed as a conclusion of law. We agree with the district court\u2019s conclusion that the serial infliction of multiple fractures of the skull, leg, and ribs upon a prematurely born and malnourished infant during his first eight weeks of life qualifies as \u201caggravated circumstances\u201d under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2). Accordingly, we overrule respondent\u2019s assignment of error.\nII\nRespondent next claims that the district court abused its discretion by failing to order a relative placement for the minor child with his maternal grandparents pursuant to the mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-903(a)(2)(c) (2007). We disagree.\nThe district court has broad discretion to fashion a disposition from the prescribed alternatives in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-903(a), based upon the best interests of the child. In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 766, 561 S.E.2d 560, 567, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 163, 568 S.E.2d 608 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 982, 155 L. Ed. 2d 673 (2003). If the court elects to place the child outside the home, it must determine \u201cwhether a relative of the juvenile is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision of the juvenile in a safe home.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-903(a)(2). Placement with a qualifying relative is required \u201cunless the court' finds that the placement is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile.\u201d Id.\nWe review a dispositional order only for abuse of discretion. Pittman, 149 N.C. App. at 766, 561 S.E.2d at 567. \u201cAn abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court\u2019s ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. 733, 737, 567 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2002) (citations and quotations omitted).\nWe find no abuse of discretion here. The district court\u2019s consideration of the maternal grandparents as a placement option for B.W. is reflected in the following findings:\n30. The parents\u2019 unwillingness to acknowledge the nature and extent of B[.W.]\u2019s injuries, as well as their lack of an emotioned response, together with an unwillingness of either to address the causes of B[.W.]\u2019s multiple fracture history at 52 days of age render any placement with them not viable and places the maternal grandparents in the untenable position of having [to] exclude their daughter from their home for the next seventeen and a half years in order to provide any hope of safety to this child.\n35. Placement with the relatives is not indicated due to the parents\u2019 and the grandparents unwillingness to consider or explain the source of the injuries.\n36. The [m]aternal grandfather underwent inpatient treatment for alcoholism in December 2006 and January 2007 and was then recommended to attend intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment.\nThe court expressly concluded that \u201c[placement of the minor child with a relative is contrary to the best interest of the minor child.\u201d Inasmuch as \u201cthe child\u2019s interest in being protected from abuse and neglect is paramount[,]\u201d Pittman, 149 N.C. App. at 761, 561 S.E.2d at 564, we cannot say that the court\u2019s concerns about a placement with the grandparents were manifestly unreasonable.\nRespondent suggests that the court\u2019s findings are insufficient to explain its disposition. Respondent\u2019s claim that \u201cthe court did not find that the grandparents were unwilling to consider or explain the source of the child\u2019s injuries\u201d is simply contradicted by finding number 35, which cites \u201cthe grandparents\u2019 unwillingness to consider or explain the source of the [child\u2019s] injuries.\u201d We note that a \u201ccourt is not required to make findings of fact on all the evidence presented,\u201d but need only \u201cmake brief, pertinent and definite findings and conclusions about the matters in issue[.]\u201d In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. 66, 75, 623 S.E.2d 45, 51 (2005) (citation omitted). The findings in the instant case reflect that the court complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-903(a) by properly considering and rejecting a placement with the grandparents. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIll\nIn her final assignment of error, respondent challenges the court\u2019s decision to cease all efforts to reunify her with B.W. Respondent argues the court\u2019s decision was \u201cpremature and unecessary[,]\u201d in view of the limited information obtained by Dr. Kilpatrick from his single interview with the parents. Given the possibility that she would prove amenable to treatment and would come forward with information about B.W.\u2019s injuries, respondent contends the court mistakenly found additional efforts toward reunification to be futile.\nSection 7B-507(b) of the Juvenile Code provides as follows:\nIn any order placing a juvenile in the custody or placement responsibility of a county department of social services, whether an order for continued nonsecure custody, a dispositional order, or a review order, the court may direct that reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for placement of the juvenile shall not be required or shall cease if the court makes written findings of fact that:\n(1) Such efforts clearly would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile\u2019s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time; [or]\n(2) A court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined in G.S. 7B-101[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(l)-(2) (2007). \u201cThis Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court\u2019s conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition.\u201d In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007).\nIn support of its decision to cease reunification efforts, the court concluded both that \u201c[fjurther efforts to reunify the child with either parent would clearly be futile and inconsistent with [his] need for a safe permanent home within a reasonable period of time[,]\u201d and that \u201c[t]he injuries suffered by this child constitute aggravated circumstances as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2).\u201d Although either of these conclusions is sufficient grounds to support a cessation of reunification efforts under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b), we have already herein upheld the trial court\u2019s determination that B.W.\u2019s injuries constituted an \u201caggravated circumstance\u201d under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(2). Therefore, we now hold that the court\u2019s decision to cease reunification efforts was supported by the necessary finding under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(2). Contrary to respondent\u2019s unsupported-assertion, nothing in the statute requires \u201canother court \u2018of competent jurisdiction\u2019 \u201d to find aggravated circumstances before a court may cease reunification efforts pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(2) (emphasis added).\nThe evidence before the district court showed that respondent had displayed no concern for B.W. and no inclination to come to terms with the gravity of the abuse he suffered while in her care. Her \u201cdefensive\u201d and \u201cfaking good\u201d responses during her interview with Dr. Kilpatrick precluded any meaningful psychological evaluation and evinced no inclination toward treatment. Respondent also chose to remain silent at the dispositional hearing. Pittman, 149 N.C. App. at 760, 561 S.E.2d at 564 (holding that a parent enjoys no Fifth Amendment privilege in a juvenile proceeding). Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in ceasing reunification efforts. To the extent that respondent separately excepts to the decision to cease her visitation with the child, we again find no abuse of the court\u2019s discretion.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and McCULLOUGH concur.\n. Initials have been used throughout to protect the identity of the juvenile.\n. \u201cIn any order placing a juvenile in the custody or placement responsibility of a county department of social services, whether an order for continued nonsecure custody, a dispositional order, or a review order, the court may direct that reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for placement of the juvenile shall not be required or shall cease if the court makes written findings of fact that:... (2) A court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined in G.S. 7B-101[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(2) (2007).", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lauren Vaughan for petitioner-appellee.", "Melanie Steward Cranford for Guardian ad Litem.", "Rebekah W. Davis for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: B.W., A Minor Child\nNo. COA07-1579\n(Filed 6 May 2008)\n1. Child Abuse and Neglect\u2014 statements by attorney \u2014 not evidentiary \u2014 not prejudicial\nIn a hearing adjudicating child abuse and neglect and the cessation of reunification efforts with the parents, any error in allowing statements by an attorney regarding pending criminal charges was not prejudicial because the trial court\u2019s finding on the issue was not necessary to its disposition.\n2. Child Abuse and Neglect\u2014 findings concerning grandparents \u2014 supported by evidence\nIn a hearing adjudicating child abuse and neglect and the cessation of reunification efforts with the parents, the evidence supported the trial court\u2019s findings concerning the grandparents\u2019 unwillingness to acknowledge the nature and source of the child\u2019s injuries or to deny respondent (the mother) access to the child if the child was placed in their home.\n3. Child Abuse and Neglect\u2014 infant\u2019s injuries \u2014 aggravated circumstances\nThe serial infliction of multiple fractures of the skull, leg, and ribs upon a prematurely born and malnourished infant during the \u2022 first eight weeks of life qualifies as \u201caggravated circumstances\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-101(2).\n4. Child Abuse and Neglected\u2014 child not placed with grandparents \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering that a neglected and abused child be placed with his maternal grandparents. Its findings reflected that the court complied with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-903(a) by properly considering and rejecting a placement with the grandparents.\n5. Child Abuse and Neglect\u2014 reunification efforts ceased\u2014 aggravating circumstances \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court\u2019s decision to cease reunification efforts was supported by the necessary finding under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(2) where the court determined that the child\u2019s injuries constituted an aggravated circumstance under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-101(2). Nothing in the statute requires another court to find aggravated circumstances before reunification efforts are stopped. There was no abuse of discretion in ceasing reunification efforts given respondent\u2019s lack of concern for the child and the lack of an inclination to come to terms with the gravity of the abuse he suffered while in her care.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 25 September 2007 by Judge C. Thomas Edwards in Catawba County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 April 2008.\nLauren Vaughan for petitioner-appellee.\nMelanie Steward Cranford for Guardian ad Litem.\nRebekah W. Davis for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0328-01", "first_page_order": 360, "last_page_order": 371 }