{ "id": 8526232, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: CATHERINE DIANE THOMPSON", "name_abbreviation": "In re Thompson", "decision_date": "1983-09-20", "docket_number": "No. 8321DC370", "first_page": "95", "last_page": "101", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. App. 95" } ], "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": "408 N.Y.S. 2d 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a mother's failure to follow through on plans for psychological treatment for her child's hyperactivity as recommended by health officials constituted neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Misc. 2d 1026", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1918026 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a mother's failure to follow through on plans for psychological treatment for her child's hyperactivity as recommended by health officials constituted neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc2d/95/1026-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ariz. L. Rev. 1055", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Ariz. L. Rev.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.W. 2d 675", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10684368 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "child found to be \"deprived\" rather than abused as a result of sustaining multiple bruises from her father's excessive punishment; such punishment falling below minimum standards of care tolerable by the community" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/290/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 N.E. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a conclusion of neglect sustained upon findings that child had burns on his feet inconsistent with his parents' explanation" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3359252 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a conclusion of neglect sustained upon findings that child had burns on his feet inconsistent with his parents' explanation" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 N.E. 2d 1087", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "physical abuse alone would have supported the finding of neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. App. 3d 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3227832 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "physical abuse alone would have supported the finding of neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/81/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "willful failure and refusal to send children to school constitutes neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 N.C. App. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553395 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "willful failure and refusal to send children to school constitutes neglect" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/30/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 S.E. 2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551576 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572135, 8572109, 8572082, 8572179, 8572221 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0557-03", "/nc/306/0557-02", "/nc/306/0557-01", "/nc/306/0557-04", "/nc/306/0557-05" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524814 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0453-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 681, "char_count": 15811, "ocr_confidence": 0.827, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.3588580502270583e-07, "percentile": 0.8751639574353562 }, "sha256": "eb9c370e8fdff9af2ac860dd2c9c3be4ba16e236ae71b500e5cb998a2584defa", "simhash": "1:02858343a9b0aec3", "word_count": 2636 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WHICHARD and EAGLES concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: CATHERINE DIANE THOMPSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHNSON, Judge.\nIt is unchallenged, and the court found, that the five year old child Catherine was struck with a belt by her mother and then scrubbed until she bled into her bath water, as a disciplinary measure against what her mother viewed, correctly or incorrectly, as her child\u2019s improper sexual conduct. Ms. Hynes, the child\u2019s mother, stated that she felt this was an appropriate disciplinary measure, and the court found that the child bled from this rough handling on at least three occasions. The results of these disciplinary measures were multiple bruises and abrasions. The child\u2019s examining pediatrician, guardian ad litem, and the petitioner DSS all recommended that the child be evaluated by the Child Guidance Clinic of Forsyth County to determine if the child was developing normally and to have the child treated if necessary and the respondent mother, after being so advised, failed to take the child to be evaluated. However, the court concluded that Catherine was not a neglected child as defined by G.S. 7A-517(21).\nThe issue presented in this appeal is whether a child who is found to have been disciplined so severely that bruises and internal abrasions result is a \u201cneglected\u201d juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7A-517(21). A neglected child is defined by that statute, in pertinent part, as a \u201cjuvenile who does not receive proper care, supervision, or discipline from his parent ... or who is not provided necessary medical care or other remedial care recognized under State law, or who lives in an environment injurious to his welfare . . .\u201d We conclude that Catherine is a neglected juvenile under this definition and hold that, on the facts found, the court erred by dismissing the petition.\nAt the outset, it must be noted that this is not a petition seeking termination of the respondent mother\u2019s parental rights. It appears from the juvenile petition and the court\u2019s order that the Department of Social Services sought an order primarily directing the respondent mother to accept and cooperate with the petitioner\u2019s Protective Services for Children and to have the child evaluated by the County\u2019s Child Guidance Clinic.\nThe district court\u2019s findings of fact establish that the respondent mother struck her child with a belt and, on at least three occasions while bathing the child, inserted her finger or a washcloth into the child\u2019s vagina and washed with sufficient force to cause the child to bleed. Under G.S. 7A-517(21), a child who does not receive proper care, supervision or discipline is a neglected juvenile. In general, treatment of a child which falls below the normative standards imposed upon parents by our society is considered neglectful. See In re Huber, 57 N.C. App. 453, 291 S.E. 2d 916, disc. rev. denied, 306 N.C. 557, 294 S.E. 2d 223 (1982); In re Cusson, 43 N.C. App. 333, 258 S.E. 2d 858 (1979); In re McMillan, 30 N.C. App. 235, 226 S.E. 2d 693 (1976) (willful failure and refusal to send children to school constitutes neglect). Should the mistreatment rise to the level of an injury which creates a substantial risk of impairing the health of the child, it would constitute abuse under G.S. 7A-517G). The injuries sustained by Catherine Thompson were not found by the court to have been of a serious nature. However, the bruises and abrasions resulting from Ms. Hynes\u2019 disciplining of her five year old child against what she perceived as her child\u2019s improper sexual conduct show methods of care and discipline which are below normal standards, and therefore, establish neglect under G.S. 7A-517(21).\nMoreover, decisions of courts in other jurisdictions support the view that \u201cneglect\u201d does not necessarily require a finding of nonfeasance by a parent; malfeasance just as readily qualifies as improper care or discipline. See In re Jackson, 81 Ill. App. 3d 136, 400 N.E. 2d 1087 (1980) (physical abuse alone would have supported the finding of neglect); In Interest of Jones, 59 Ill. App. 3d 412, 376 N.E. 2d 49 (1978) (a conclusion of neglect sustained upon findings that child had burns on his feet inconsistent with his parents\u2019 explanation); In Interest of S.W., 290 N.W. 2d 675 (N.D. 1980) (child found to be \u201cdeprived\u201d rather than abused as a result of sustaining multiple bruises from her father\u2019s excessive punishment; such punishment falling below minimum standards of care tolerable by the community); see generally 17 Ariz. L. Rev. 1055 (1975).\nFurthermore, the facts as found by the district court establish that a physician and social worker found the child in need of evaluation and that her mother refused to cooperate. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Lawless, the court found that the doctor examined the child, discussed her condition with her mother and recommended that the child be evaluated by the Child Guidance Clinic. The testimony indicates that the doctor\u2019s concern was twofold. First, the mother reported what she considered to be excessive self-manipulation by the child. Second, Ms. Hynes told Dr. Lawless that she had been abused as a child and he expressed his concern that the mother was overreacting to her five year old child\u2019s normal curiosity. He then suggested that she accompany the child to counseling and made a referral to the Clinic. The social worker, Ms. Hayes, attempted to facilitate the pair\u2019s visit to the Clinic, however, despite these efforts Ms. Hynes did not take Catherine to be evaluated.\nThis Court, in In re Cusson, supra, found that a mother\u2019s keeping of her son from therapeutic daycare would constitute a finding that the child was neglected under G.S. 7A-278(4), [predecessor to G.S. 7A-517(21)], in that the child did not receive proper care or discipline or was not provided necessary medical care. 43 N.C. App. at 336, 258 S.E. 2d at 860. Similarly, in In re Huber, supra, a child was held to be a \u201cneglected child\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 7A-517(21) where the child had a severe speech defect which was treatable, but the mother refused to allow the child to receive the necessary medical and remedial care that would allow the child to develop to her full educational and emotional potential. In Huber this Court observed that to \u201cdeprive a child of the opportunity for normal growth and development is perhaps the greatest neglect a parent can impose upon a child.\u201d 57 N.C. App. at 458, 291 S.E. 2d at 919. See also In the Matter of Ray, 95 Misc. 2d 1026, 408 N.Y.S. 2d 737 (1978) (a mother\u2019s failure to follow through on plans for psychological treatment for her child\u2019s hyperactivity as recommended by health officials constituted neglect).\nThe court\u2019s findings regarding the pediatrician and social worker\u2019s recommendations that Catherine be evaluated to determine if she is developing normally and be treated if necessary, and the respondent mother\u2019s failure to seek the recommended treatment for her child support the conclusion of neglect by reason of the respondent\u2019s failure to provide necessary medical care which would consequently deprive the child of the opportunity for normal growth and development. While they are certainly important, findings that the child\u2019s home is clean and that she is well fed and clothed are not dispositive on the issue of neglect. Any child whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his or her parent to exercise that degree of care consistent with the \u201cnormative standards imposed upon parents by our society,\u201d In re Huber, supra, may be considered neglected under G.S. 7A-517(21).\nAccordingly, the district court erred by concluding as a matter of law, upon the facts found, that Catherine was not a neglected juvenile, and the order entered must be vacated. This cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges WHICHARD and EAGLES concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHNSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Connolly, O\u2019Toole & Sherman, by Daniel E. O\u2019Toole, for the juvenile appellant.", "No brief filed, for the respondent appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: CATHERINE DIANE THOMPSON\nNo. 8321DC370\n(Filed 20 September 1983)\nInfants \u00a7 4\u2014 neglected child \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nA 5-year-old child was a \u201cneglected\u201d child within the meaning of G.S. 7A-517(1) where the evidence showed that respondent mother, as a disciplinary measure against what she viewed as her child\u2019s improper sexual conduct, struck the child with a belt and, on at least three occasions while bathing the child, inserted her finger or a wash cloth into the child\u2019s vagina and washed with sufficient force to cause the child to bleed, and where a pediatrician who examined the child and a social worker recommended that the child be evaluated to determine if she was developing normally and to have the child treated if necessary, but respondent mother refused to permit evaluation of the child by the Child Guidance Clinic. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing a petition by a county department of social services for an order directing respondent mother to accept and cooperate with petitioner\u2019s Protective Services for Children and to permit evaluation and appropriate treatment of the child by the county Child Guidance Clinic.\nAppeal by Guardian ad Litem from Tanis, Judge. Order entered 16 December 1982 in District Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1983.\nPetitioner, Forsyth County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition on 4 November 1982, alleging that Catherine Diane Thompson, a minor, is a neglected child as defined by G.S. 7A-517(21) in that the child does not receive proper care, supervision or discipline from her mother, the respondent. The petition alleged specifically that on or about 26 October 1982 the mother inflicted upon the child\u2019s face linear bruises, caused injuries to the child\u2019s vaginal area by excessive washing, and that the mother had admitted to DSS that such vaginal abrasion had also occurred during past washings of the child. The petition alleged further that upon investigation, DSS determined that in order to insure that the child receives proper care and supervision the child would require evaluation and appropriate treatment at the Child Guidance Clinic of Forsyth County and that the mother would require evaluation at the Family Counseling Unit of the Department of Social Services.\nA hearing on the merits of the petition was held on 16 December 1982. The testimony presented by the petitioner tended to show that on 27 October 1982, Daisy Chambers, principal of Latham School, called the Forsyth County Department of Social Services and reported that Catherine Thompson, a five year old pre-kindergarten student, had a bruised face and had complained that the mother had been \u201cdigging into\u201d her vagina with her finger or a washcloth during baths. Mrs. Chambers checked the child\u2019s underwear and observed some spots of blood.\nStephanie Hayes, a social worker from the Child Protective Service of the Forsyth County Department of Social Services, went to Latham School and spoke with the child. Catherine repeated the complaint, stating that her mother was angry with her for straying down the street; that her mother hit her on the face with a belt and threw her on the floor. The child was then given a doll and she demonstrated the treatment she had received. Catherine told Ms. Hayes that after being struck, her mother placed her in the bathtub, opened her legs and \u201cdug into\u201d her with a washcloth. Further, that although she was crying at the time, her mother proceeded to lay her on a towel on the bed to \u201ccheck her\u201d and \u201cdig some more.\u201d Catherine stated that this happened at each bath and that she often bleeds.\nAfter leaving Latham School, Ms. Hayes went to the child\u2019s home and talked with her mother, Marie Hynes. Ms. Hynes admitted that she had often bathed Catherine by scrubbing her vaginal area because she was concerned that the child was masturbating excessively. Ms. Hynes also acknowledged that she had been upset with Catherine the night before, had struck the child with her hand and then scrubbed her because she had been flirting with some of the little boys in the neighborhood. Ms. Hynes stated that she felt this was an appropriate disciplinary measure to curb her child\u2019s sexual exploration.\nLater that afternoon, with the consent of her mother, Catherine was taken to Reynolds Health Center where she was examined by Dr. Michael Lawless, a pediatrician. Dr. Lawless testified that his examination revealed a linear bruise on the child\u2019s forehead, a second oval bruise on the side of her face, a third bruise on her chest, and significant irritation and abrasion of the internal genital area which oozed blood easily. Dr. Lawless testified that it was not likely that the linear forehead bruise had been caused by a human hand, but rather was consistent with being hit with a belt.\nDr. Lawless also testified that he discussed proper methods of feminine hygiene with Ms. Hynes and recommended that Catherine be evaluated by the Child Guidance Clinic to be sure she was developing normally. He also discussed Ms. Hynes\u2019 background and she revealed to the doctor that she had been sexually abused as a child. Dr. Lawless then indicated that Ms. Hynes might be overreacting to her child\u2019s sexual development in light of her own childhood experience and suggested that she accompany Catherine to the Child Guidance Clinic, and that both could benefit from some counseling. He then made a referral for the child to the Clinic.\nIn following up on her initial investigation, Ms. Hayes found that Ms. Hynes had not taken the child to be evaluated. Ms. Hynes stated to her that she did not feel it was necessary to take Cathy to the Clinic since she had already discussed proper hygiene with Dr. Lawless. During this visit, Mr. Cordell Roudy, Ms. Hynes\u2019 boyfriend, told Ms. Hayes that Catherine\u2019s mother did not need to be told how to raise her child and ordered the social worker from the home with a curse after threatening to hit her.\nThe respondent mother offered the testimony of several neighbors to show that they had no knowledge of any abuse of the child, that the child was well fed and clothed, that the Hynes\u2019 home was very neat and that Ms. Hynes was a good mother.\nAfter hearing the testimony of all parties and the arguments of counsel, the district court found as a fact that Catherine\u2019s mother had become upset with her, struck her with a belt, and had washed her genital area with sufficient force to cause the child to bleed on at least three occasions. The court also found that the pediatrician had reported several bruises on the child; that he had observed internal abrasions of the child\u2019s genitals which oozed blood easily; that he had referred the child to the Child Guidance Clinic for evaluation, but that Ms. Hynes refused to follow through with that recommendation. In addition, the court found that Ms. Hynes\u2019 home was usually well kept and Catherine was well fed and well clothed.\nFinally, the court found that the petitioner and the child\u2019s guardian ad litem both recommended that the child be evaluated to determine if the child was developing normally and to have the child treated if necessary; that Ms. Hynes accept and cooperate with Protective Services for Children of Forsyth County DSS; and that Ms. Hynes receive counseling with the Family Counseling Unit of DSS, in order to better cope with her child\u2019s sexual development.\nBased upon these findings, the court concluded as a matter of law that Catherine was not a neglected child as defined by G.S. 7A-517(21) and the petition was dismissed. The child\u2019s guardian ad litem appeals the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the facts as found by the court do not support its conclusions of lav/ and consequent dismissal of the petition.\nConnolly, O\u2019Toole & Sherman, by Daniel E. O\u2019Toole, for the juvenile appellant.\nNo brief filed, for the respondent appellee." }, "file_name": "0095-01", "first_page_order": 127, "last_page_order": 133 }