An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance 

with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA14-210

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 August 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

K.C., H.C., C.C., S.C. Edgecombe County

Nos. 12 JA 59-62

Appeal by Respondent-Mother from orders entered 16 July 

2013 by Judge William C. Farris and 29 October 2013 by Judge 

William G. Stewart in District Court, Edgecombe County. Heard 

in the Court of Appeals 8 July 2014.

Lawrence, Best & Associates, P.A., by Natarlin R. Best, for 

Petitioner-Appellee Edgecombe County Department of Social 

Services.

Edward Eldred for Respondent-Appellant Mother.

McGEE, Judge.

Respondent-Mother (“the Mother”) appeals from orders

adjudicating her four children (“the children”) neglected and

continuing legal custody of the children with the Edgecombe 

County Department of Social Services (“DSS”). We affirm.
-2-

This is the second appeal in this matter. DSS became 

involved in 2011 with the Mother, her husband (“the 

stepfather”), and the children when DSS received a report that 

the Mother had been criminally charged with “stealing pills from 

a woman in Franklin County and had sped away with two of the 

children and [the stepfather] in the car.” At the time, the 

Mother, the stepfather, and the children (collectively, “the 

family”) were living with the stepfather’s parents. DSS found 

the family to be in need of services due to substance abuse and 

an injurious environment. The Mother entered into a safety plan 

pursuant to which the family would reside at the home of the 

stepfather’s parents and the children would be supervised at all 

times by the stepfather’s parents.

DSS filed a petition alleging that the children were 

neglected and dependent on 21 February 2012. DSS alleged that 

the Mother and the stepfather lacked housing of their own; that 

the Mother and the stepfather abused prescription drugs and used 

marijuana daily; that the Mother and the stepfather engaged in 

acts of domestic violence; that the children did not attend 

school regularly while under the Mother’s care; and that the 

Mother did not comply with the safety plan when she took the 

children to the State of Virginia.
-3-

The Mother moved out of the stepfather’s parents’ home on 

17 April 2012, at which time the stepfather’s parents were no 

longer willing to provide care for the children and requested 

that the children be removed by 24 April 2012. At the Mother’s 

request, the children were placed with the Mother in the home of 

a relative. The children remained in the home of the relative 

until the relative was arrested for trafficking narcotics on 10 

may 2012, and DSS placed the children in a licensed foster home.

The trial court held a hearing on the petition on 26 June 

2012. By an amended adjudication and disposition order entered 

20 September 2012, the trial court adjudicated the children 

neglected and continued placement of the children in foster 

homes. The Mother appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial 

court’s findings of fact were insufficient to support its

conclusion that the children were neglected. This Court 

reversed the adjudication and disposition order, and remanded 

the case for further action. In re K.C., ___ N.C. App. ___, 745 

S.E.2d 375 (2013) (unpublished).

Upon remand, the trial court entered an order on 16 July 

2013, adjudicating the children neglected. In a separate 

disposition order, the trial court concluded it was in the best 

interest of the children that they remain in the legal custody 
-4-

of DSS. The trial court ordered that DSS be relieved of 

unification efforts with the Mother and with the natural father 

of the children. The Mother appeals.

The Mother contends the trial court erred in concluding 

that her children were neglected juveniles. We disagree.

This Court has stated that: “The purpose of abuse, neglect 

and dependency proceedings is for the court to determine whether 

the juvenile should be adjudicated as having the status of 

abused, neglected or dependent.” In re J.S., 182 N.C. App. 79, 

86, 641 S.E.2d 395, 399 (2007). Accordingly, the role of this 

Court in reviewing a trial court’s adjudication of neglect and 

abuse 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.” 

In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475, 480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 

(2000)(citations omitted). If this evidence exists, the 

findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the 

evidence would support a finding to the contrary. In re McCabe, 

157 N.C. App. 673, 679, 580 S.E.2d 69, 73 (2003). 

A neglected juvenile is one “who does not receive proper 

care, supervision, or discipline” from a parent or caretaker, or 

“who lives in an environment injurious to the juvenile’s 
-5-

welfare[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(15) (2013). This Court 

has held that an adjudication of neglect requires “that there be 

some physical, mental, or emotional impairment of the juvenile 

or a substantial risk of such impairment as a consequence of the 

failure to provide proper care, supervision, or discipline.” In 

re Safriet, 112 N.C. App. 747, 752, 436 S.E.2d 898, 901-02 

(1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

To support its conclusion that the children were neglected 

in that they lived in an environment injurious to their welfare, 

the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact:

5. The [M]other [] and [the stepfather] are 

addicted to prescription pain medication and 

used said drugs and marijuana daily while 

caring for the children. They are not 

employed and rely upon [the stepfather’s 

parents] for food, shelter, and clothing for 

themselves and the minor children.

6. The [M]other took at least one of the 

children with her on several occasions to 

hospital emergency rooms in Nash and Wilson 

Counties complaining of kidney stones and 

seeking pain medication. While at the Nash 

emergency room with her one year old child, 

[Respondent] fell asleep.

7. On September 9, 2011, the [M]other drove 

with the stepfather and [Mr. P.] and with 

the children [K.C.] and [S.C.] to the Family 

Dollar store in Castalia, N.C. to purchase 

stolen prescription drugs. The [M]other was 

arrested on criminal charges involving the 

stolen drugs, but the charges were later 

dismissed.
-6-

8. The stepfather [] also abused pain 

medication and sold the family’s food stamps 

to obtain said drugs. The [stepfather] also 

used the children’s Attention Deficit 

Disorder medications recreationally. 

9. Prior to moving into the home of [the 

stepfather’s parents], the [M]other failed 

to have her children attend school 

regularly. The three older children have a 

history of excessive absences. With the 

help of [the stepfather’s parents], the 

children were properly clothed and wellnourished, and they attended school 

regularly[.]

10. In September, 2011, the [M]other agreed 

on a safety plan with Edgecombe County 

Department of Social Services to address the 

needs of her children which included drug 

treatment for the [M]other; not leaving the 

children alone with the [M]other and [the 

stepfather]; and living with the children in 

[the stepfather’s parents’] home. But the 

[M]other failed to appear for appointments 

with her caseworker; failed a drug screen; 

failed to take several drug screens; 

attended drug counseling sporadically; moved 

with the children to Virginia without notice 

to DSS or [the stepfather’s parents] in 

December, 2011 with no firm plans for 

housing there; and did not enroll the 

children in school in Virginia. Mr. [D.]

went to Virginia on December 15, 2011 and 

brought the children and the [M]other back 

to his home.

11. The [M]other exhibited extreme mood 

swings in the presence of her caseworker and 

her children. She was cordial and 

cooperative at times but angry, cursing, 

crying, shaking, and nauseated at other 

times. The [M]other reported to the 
-7-

Department of Social Services that she was 

in physical discomfort from drug withdrawal.

The Mother challenges the portion of finding of fact 10 

that she “moved with the children to Virginia without notice to 

DSS or [the stepfather’s parents] in December, 2011 with no firm 

plans for housing there[.]” The Mother asserts the evidence 

shows that DSS and the stepfather’s parents were given notice 

and that she had plans for housing. 

The Mother is correct that she called a DSS investigator on 

the day she was moving to Virginia and gave the investigator “an 

address that [the Mother] would be moving to and a phone number 

that [the Mother] could be contacted with[.]” The DSS social 

worker assigned to the family testified that she initially 

received information from the stepfather’s mother, but explained 

to her that it would be better if she could hear from the 

Mother, “[a]nd then [the Mother] did contact [the social worker]

and leave a contact number.” There is no direct testimony from 

the stepfather’s parents concerning the notice to them from the 

Mother of her move to Virginia. However, the social worker 

testified she initially received information about the Mother’s 

move to Virginia from the stepfather’s mother and only later 

from the Mother. While the Mother did make contact with DSS and 
-8-

the stepfather’s parents, she failed to provide a “specific plan 

for the safety of the children.”

The social worker also testified (1) that the agency was 

concerned because the Mother had uprooted the children “with no 

specific plan for the safety of the children[,]” and (2) the 

Mother had returned to North Carolina after a few days because 

“she had nowhere to stay[.]” As to housing, the social worker 

also testified the Mother first took the children to the 

residence of her mother and then to the residence of her cousin; 

however, at neither location was there any place available for 

the Mother and the children. We therefore conclude that, while 

the Mother did make contact with DSS and the stepfather’s 

parents, it was more important for the well-being of the 

children that she provide a specific plan for the safety of the 

children, and she failed to do so. The portion of finding of 

fact 10 challenged by the Mother is supported by the evidence.

The Mother also contends the trial court erred in 

adjudicating her children neglected because the findings failed 

to establish a risk of harm to the children. While it is 

generally true that findings of actual or substantial risk of 

harm are necessary to support an adjudication of neglect, this 

Court has held that an adjudication lacking such findings may 
-9-

nonetheless be affirmed when “all the evidence supports such a 

finding.” Safriet at 753, 436 S.E.2d at 902. 

In this case, the enumerated findings of fact show that the 

Mother lacked stable housing and income, abused marijuana and

prescription drugs, engaged in domestic violence, and did not 

properly supervise the children’s school attendance. Further, 

the Mother disregarded the safety plan to the detriment of her 

children’s well-being by removing them from school in midDecember and taking them to Virginia. The trial court’s 

findings demonstrate an injurious environment which had the 

effect of placing the children at substantial risk of physical 

or emotional impairment. As a result, we affirm the trial 

court’s determination that the children were neglected 

juveniles.

Affirmed.

Judges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).