{ "id": 6768936, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF R.R.N.", "name_abbreviation": "In re R.R.N.", "decision_date": "2014-05-06", "docket_number": "No. COA13-947", "first_page": "647", "last_page": "651", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 N.C. App. 647" } ], "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": "625 S.E.2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635064, 12635065, 12635063 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/625/0779-02", "/se2d/625/0779-03", "/se2d/625/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633847 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "629 S.E.2d 920", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635830 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "922" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/629/0920-01" ] }, { "cite": "648 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639084 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523", "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/648/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3797279 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352791 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 700", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8302179 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/177/0700-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.C. App. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8209766 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343", "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/185/0337-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 563, "char_count": 11564, "ocr_confidence": 0.722, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.18205694617717094 }, "sha256": "6f9db80b65292a1f312e4e526d5d116ae3701dec6292172359df49b85c351217", "simhash": "1:568f1573de2654dc", "word_count": 1886 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.832613+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF R.R.N." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nRespondent, the mother of the juvenile, appeals from an order adjudicating R.R.N. an abused and neglected juvenile. After careful review, we reverse.\nI. Background\nOn 30 November 2012, the Wilson County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) filed a petition alleging that R.R.N. was an abused and neglected juvenile. DSS amended the petition on 11 December 2012. DSS stated that it received a Child Protective Services report on 20 August 2012 claiming that R.R.N. had been sexually abused. R.R.N. had visited the home of her alleged abuser [\u201cMr. B.\u201d], who was her stepfather\u2019s cousin, on 18 August 2012. Following the visit, the juvenile disclosed to respondent that she had been having a relationship with Mr. B., which included him fondling her breasts and kissing her. Respondent reported the alleged abuse to DSS. Subsequently, during an interview with a social worker, the juvenile stated that she had performed oral sex on Mr. B., he had digitally penetrated her, and she and Mr. B. had originally planned to have sexual intercourse during her visit on 18 August 2012. DSS alleged that Mr. B. and his wife had been \u201cacting as caretakers for [R.R.N.] that evening and were providing care to her in their home.\u201d After the disclosure of the abuse, respondent and the juvenile\u2019s stepfather did not allow any further contact between R.R.N. and Mr. B. and sought counseling for the juvenile. R.R.N. underwent a Child Medical Evaluation on 10 September 2012. The juvenile\u2019s statements during the interview were consistent with the disclosures made to the social worker.\nOn 30 January 2013, respondent moved to dismiss DSS\u2019 petition pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, respondent argued that the Juvenile Code did not apply because Mr. B. was not a parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker for the juvenile as defined by the Juvenile Code. The trial court denied the motion.\nAdjudicatory hearings were held on 13, 14, 15, and 29 March 2013. The trial court found as fact that the juvenile had (1) performed oral sex on Mr. B., (2) they had engaged in kissing, (3) Mr. B. had touched the juvenile\u2019s breasts and digitally penetrated her, and (4) that Mr. B. acted as a caretaker for the juvenile on 18 August 2012. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated R.R.N. as an abused and neglected juvenile. The court ordered that custody of R.R.N. should remain with respondent, closed the case and terminated further review. Respondent appeals.\nII. Analysis\nRespondent argues that R.R.N. was not an abused or neglected juvenile because Mr. B. was not a caretaker. More specifically, respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. B. was \u201centrusted\u201d with R.R.N.\u2019s care as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(3). We agree and note that this issue is one of first impression for our courts.\n\u201cThe role of this Court in reviewing a trial court\u2019s adjudication of neglect and abuse [and dependency] is to determine (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the legal conclusions are supported by the findings of fact[.]\u201d In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. App. 337, 343, 648 S.E.2d 519, 523 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). \u201cIf such evidence exists, the findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the evidence would support a finding to the contrary.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). \u201cThe trial court\u2019s \u2018conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.\u2019 \u201d In re D.H., 177 N.C. App. 700, 703, 629 S.E.2d 920, 922 (2006).\nThe Juvenile Code includes in its definition of abuse and neglect those juveniles who have been abused or neglected by a \u201ccaretaker.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B~101(1) (2013).\nCaretaker is defined as:\nAny person other than a parent, guardian, or custodian who has responsibility for the health and welfare of a juvenile in a residential setting. A person responsible for a juvenile\u2019s health and welfare means a stepparent, foster parent, an adult member of the juvenile\u2019s household, [or] an adult relative entrusted with the juvenile\u2019s care[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(3) (2013).\nThe primary purpose of the \u201ccaretaker\u201d statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(3), is to protect the juvenile from abuse and neglect inflicted by an adult member of the juvenile\u2019s household. In addition, the statute serves to protect the juvenile from abuse and neglect inflicted by an adult relative who has been entrusted with responsibility for the health and welfare of the child. These relatives include persons related to the juvenile by blood as well as marriage, including step-parents and extended step-relatives. The trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances to discern whether the relative has been \u201centrusted\u201d with the juvenile\u2019s care under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(3).\nGenerally, an adult relative is not \u201centrusted\u201d with a juvenile\u2019s care for the purposes of being a caretaker unless an extended-care situation is in play. Such situations may include a prolonged visit by the juvenile to a relative\u2019s residence during which time the relative gains apparent or actual authority over the juvenile\u2019s health and welfare. Alternatively, a relative may inadvertently become entrusted with the child\u2019s care. For example, and assuming this issue was presented in In re P.L.P., we would support a determination that P.L.P.\u2019s uncle became her caretaker when P.L.P.\u2019s mother left her in the uncle\u2019s care \u201cfor the night and had not returned for a few weeks.\u201d 173 N.C. App. 1, 3, 618 S.E.2d 241, 243 (2005) aff\u2019d, 360 N.C. 360, 625 S.E.2d 779 (2006). By the mother\u2019s extended absence, the uncle became entrusted with P.LP.\u2019s care. However, had P.L.P.\u2019s mother returned the following day, the uncle would have been responsible for P.L.P.\u2019s temporary supervision.\nHere, the basis of the petition filed by DSS was that Mr. B. satisfied the definition of \u201ccaretaker\u201d because: (1) he was a step-cousin, and (2) he was entrusted with the juvenile\u2019s care when her parents permitted her to sleep over at his home on 18 August 2012. Specifically, the petition alleges that R.R.N. is an abused juvenile because her \u201cparent, guardian or caretaker\u201d \u201ccreated or allowed to be created serious emotional damage\u201d to the juvenile on 18 August 2012. The petition also alleges that R.R.N. is a neglected juvenile because she \u201clived\u201d in an environment injurious to her welfare on 18 August 2012, the evening that R.R.N. slept at Mr. B.\u2019s residence. The trial court concluded that Mr. B. was the juvenile\u2019s \u201ccaretaker,\u201d finding: (1) Mr. B. and the juvenile\u2019s stepfather were first cousins; (2) Mr. B. \u201cacknowledged that he and his wife . . . were responsible for the care and supervision of [R.R.N.] when she was left with them overnight on August 18, 2012;\u201d and (3) the sexual contact occurring between Mr. B. and the juvenile occurred at Mr. B.\u2019s residence.\nWe disagree with the trial court\u2019s interpretation of the term \u201ccaretaker\u201d on these facts. The situation before us did not come within the purview of the Juvenile Code until R.R.N. spent the night at Mr. B.\u2019s residence. Had Mr. B. simply been the father of the juvenile\u2019s friend, the Juvenile Code would not apply. Alternatively, had the abuse occurred absent the sleepover situation, the Juvenile Code would similarly not apply. Regardless, and despite a familial relationship, Mr. B. was not R.R.N.\u2019s caretaker because he was not \u201centrusted\u201d with her care by virtue of supervising the sleepover.\nWhen a parent or guardian allows a child to attend a sleepover, the parent does not relinquish responsibility over the child\u2019s health and welfare. This is evidenced by the following two situations. First, should R.R.N. have needed medical treatment during the night, it would be respondent, not Mr. B., who would have had the authority to make R.R.N.\u2019s health-related decisions. Respondent was in town and could easily have been contacted by physicians or by Mr. B. Second, if R.R.N. became scared to sleep away from home, R.R.N. would likely have been returned to respondent\u2019s care that same evening. As such, and given the temporary nature of a sleepover, the adult supervisor, whether a relative or not, is not \u201centrusted\u201d with the child\u2019s care as contemplated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(c). The adult supervisor must only attempt to ensure the visiting child\u2019s safety. Respondent, not Mr. B., was responsible for R.R.N.\u2019s health and welfare on 18 August 2012.\nIn its petition, DSS does not allege that respondent or R.R.N.\u2019s stepfather, the two adults with whom R.R.N. resided, were aware of or contributed to R.R.N.\u2019s abuse or neglect. In fact, the petition provides that respondent insured R.R.N.\u2019s safety \u201cby not allowing any further contact with Mr. and Mrs. [B.]\u201d and by \u201cmaking sure [R.R.N.] attends counseling on a consistent basis.\u201d Further, there is no indication that the trial court was concerned for R.R.N.\u2019s safety in respondent\u2019s home. This is evidenced by the fact that the trial court released R.R.N. into respondent\u2019s custody after adjudicating her abused and neglected.\nOne intended purpose of juvenile proceedings for abuse, neglect, and dependency as expressed in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-100(3), is \u201c[t]o provide for services'for the protection of juveniles by means that respect both the right to family autonomy and the juveniles\u2019 needs for safety, continuity, and permanence[.]\u201d In adjudicating R.R.N. abused and neglected on these facts, the trial court failed to account for the intention of the Juvenile Code to respect family autonomy. R.R.N.\u2019s needs for safety, continuity, and permanence were at all relevant times sufficiently met by respondent.\nIII. Conclusion\nIn concluding that Mr. B. was R.R.N.\u2019s caretaker, the trial court stretched N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-101(3) beyond its intended scope. Mr. B. was simply a relative who sexually assaulted R.R.N. while she was under his temporary supervision. At no time was Mr. B. responsible for R.R.N.\u2019s health and welfare. Further, not every child who is the victim of a crime where the perpetrator is a family member requires the protection of the Juvenile Code. Our legal system has appropriate mechanisms in place to handle perpetrators of such crimes. In sum, the trial court erred in applying the Juvenile Code on these facts and in subsequently adjudicating R.R.N. abused and neglected. Accordingly, we reverse. Respondent\u2019s remaining argument is now moot.\nReversed.\nJudges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concur.\n. See North Carolina DSS On-line Manual, Chapter VIII: Protective Services 1407. http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/ohn/manuals/dss/csm-60/man/CS1407-01.htm.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen L. Beaman for petitioner-appellee Wilson County Department of Social Services.", "Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Annick Lenoir-Peek for respondent-appellant.", "Administrative Office of the Courts, by Appellate Counsel Tawanda N. Foster, for guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF R.R.N.\nNo. COA13-947\nFiled 6 May 2014\nChild Abuse, Dependency, and Neglect \u2014 sexual assault \u2014 family member \u2014 perpetrator not the caretaker\nThe trial court erred by adjudicating a minor child as abused and neglected. The family member who sexually assaulted the minor child was not the minor child\u2019s caretaker, even though the child was under his temporary supervision. Further, not every child who is the victim of a crime where the perpetrator is a family member requires the protection of the Juvenile Code.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 22 July 2013 by Judge Pell C. Cooper in Wilson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 March 2014.\nStephen L. Beaman for petitioner-appellee Wilson County Department of Social Services.\nAppellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Annick Lenoir-Peek for respondent-appellant.\nAdministrative Office of the Courts, by Appellate Counsel Tawanda N. Foster, for guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0647-01", "first_page_order": 657, "last_page_order": 661 }