IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCSC-109

No. 393PA20

Filed 4 November 2022

IN THE MATTER OF L.N.H.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 from a unanimous, unpublished decision

of the Court of Appeals, 272 N.C. App. 695, 2020 WL 4462550 (2020), reversing in 

part, vacating in part, and remanding the trial court’s order entered on 23 August

2019 by Judge Marcus A. Shields in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the 

Supreme Court on 23 May 2022 in session in the Old Burke County Courthouse in 

the City of Morganton pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-10(a).

Mercedes O. Chut, for appellant Guilford County Department of Health and 

Human Services.

Matthew D. Wunsche, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.

Jeffrey L. Miller, for appellant respondent-mother.

BERGER, Justice.

¶ 1 Appellant Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services (DSS) 

appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed in part and vacated 

in part the trial court’s adjudications of abuse, neglect, and dependency, as well as

the disposition and permanency planning order in the matter of L.N.H. In re L.N.H., 

272 N.C. App. 695, 2020 WL 4462550 (2020) (unpublished). DSS filed a petition for 

discretionary review on September 8, 2020. Respondent-mother filed a conditional 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

petition for discretionary review on September 28, 2020. We allowed both petitions 

on December 14, 2021. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Lea1 was born in February 2019. On May 7, 2019, DSS began an investigation 

after receiving a report regarding Lea’s hospitalization. The report alleged that

respondent-mother punched Lea in the chest, sprayed a green liquid on Lea, waved 

a lighter near Lea’s face, and burned Lea’s feet with a lighter. The report also alleged 

that Lea was subsequently left outside on the porch unattended. Respondent-mother 

was arrested and charged with felony child abuse inflicting serious injury and held 

in the Guilford County Jail under a $500,000.00 bond. Medical records obtained by 

DSS from the hospital confirmed that Lea suffered burns to her feet. 

¶ 3 Social worker Jerin Elliot interviewed respondent-mother in jail on May 8, 

2019. Consistent with her statement to another social worker on the day of the 

incident, respondent-mother told Elliott that she did not remember the events leading 

to Lea’s hospitalization; she only remembered that she had put the child to bed, drank 

alcohol, and then went to sleep. Respondent-mother admitted she suffered from 

depression and had not been taking her medication. She further identified Bruce 

Rutledge as Lea’s father, but she did not have his contact information. Elliott’s 

 

1 Pseudonyms are used in this opinion to protect the juvenile’s identity and for ease of 

reading.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

investigation further revealed that respondent-mother told her mother that when Lea 

was taken to the hospital for treatment, respondent-mother thought the child was 

still in the home. 

¶ 4 On May 8, 2019, Lea’s maternal great-grandmother and other family members 

informed DSS that they would be willing to take care of Lea; however, no home study 

had been completed when the petition was filed. Lea’s family members also identified 

respondent-father as the child’s father and stated that he had been in and out of 

prison and had active warrants against him.

2 

¶ 5 On May 9, 2019, DSS obtained nonsecure custody of Lea after filing a petition 

alleging that Lea was abused, neglected, and dependent.

¶ 6 On July 31, 2019, the trial court held an adjudication, disposition, and 

permanency planning hearing. At the hearing, Elliot testified about the investigation.

When asked if DSS had received a report regarding the family, respondent-mother 

objected to testimony concerning the report on hearsay grounds. DSS argued the 

report was not being offered for the truth of the allegations set forth in the report, 

but to show why DSS became involved with the family. The trial court overruled the 

objection and allowed Elliot to testify. 

 

2 Respondent-father was subsequently located and served. He submitted to DNA 

testing which confirmed that he was Lea’s biological father. However, at the time the petition 

was filed, paternity had not been established. The trial court ordered that reunification 

efforts with respondent-father should continue and that he should have visitation with the 

child.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

¶ 7 Later, Elliot testified that DSS had received medical records regarding Lea’s 

injuries. The trial court took judicial notice of a medical records exhibit, which the 

court had admitted in a previous nonsecure custody hearing without objection.3 The 

medical records detailed how Lea was transferred to the hospital. The summary 

stated, “[Lea] is a 2 month old female . . . who was transferred from [a different] 

hospital where she was initially brought . . . by [Lea’s] neighbors who witnessed 

[respondent-]mother abusing [Lea] physically.” The medical records further 

contained a History of Present Illness section, which stated, “the neighbors saw 

[respondent-]mother burning [Lea]’s feet with [a] cigarette light[er], punching her in 

the abdomen and spraying her face with Windex.”

¶ 8 On August 23, 2019, the trial court adjudicated Lea an abused, neglected, and 

dependent juvenile. The trial court found that Lea had sustained injuries related to

respondent-mother “punching [her] in the chest, allowing green liquid to be placed 

across [her] face, and allowing [her] to sustain serious burns to her feet, as [a result 

of respondent-] mother being under the influence of alcohol, based upon her own 

admission.” The trial court also determined that Lea was left outside on the steps of 

the home after sustaining these injuries. 

¶ 9 The trial court ordered that legal and physical custody remain with DSS, but 

 

3 At oral argument, respondent-mother’s counsel conceded that respondent-mother 

was represented by counsel at the hearing in which these medical records were originally 

admitted.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

that custody be transferred to Lea’s relatives once they complied with certain 

requirements. The court also found that reunification with respondent-mother would 

be unsuccessful and ordered DSS to cease reunification efforts with her. Respondentmother’s visitation rights with Lea were terminated. 

¶ 10 Respondent-mother appealed. On August 4, 2020, the Court of Appeals held 

that respondent-mother was denied a fair hearing and the trial court erred in 

adjudicating Lea an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. In re L.N.H., 272 

N.C. App. 695, 2020 WL 4462550, at *6. Specifically, the Court of Appeals determined 

that respondent-mother’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object 

to the admission of Lea’s medical records and that the trial court improperly 

considered Elliot’s testimony regarding the neighbors’ report as substantive evidence. 

Id. at *5–6. Further, the Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication of dependency, 

stating that “the trial court erroneously based its adjudication of dependency on 

conditions existing at the time the petition was filed instead of the time of the 

adjudication.” Id. at *7. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated the disposition and 

permanency planning order and remanded the case to the trial court. Id. 

¶ 11 On September 8, 2020, DSS filed a petition for discretionary review under 

N.C.G.S. § 7A-31(c). On September 28, 2020, respondent-mother filed a conditional 

petition for discretionary review in response. This court allowed both petitions on 

December 14, 2021, and the matter was heard on May 23, 2022.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

II. Analysis

¶ 12 First, we address the argument by DSS that the Court of Appeals erred in 

determining that the trial court improperly admitted and considered witness reports 

of abuse contained in Lea’s medical records.

¶ 13 “In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have 

presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific 

grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were 

not apparent from the context.” N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2021); see also, In re E.D., 

372 N.C. 111, 116, 827 S.E.2d 450, 454 (2019). As this Court has stated, “a 

respondent’s failure to object to the trial court’s taking judicial notice of underlying 

juvenile case files waives appellate review of the issue.” In re A.C., 378 N.C. 377, 

2021-NCSC-91, ¶ 17 (cleaned up).

¶ 14 Here, the trial court took judicial notice of the medical records previously 

admitted without objection at a May 10, 2019 hearing on nonsecure custody in which 

respondent-mother was represented by counsel. When counsel for DSS offered the 

medical records for admission there, the following exchange occurred:

[DEPARTMENT COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I’m not going to 

introduce an extensive amount of medical records; 

however, previously admitted into evidence on May 10th,

2019, are a portion of the medical records. Since those have 

already been admitted into evidence, I would ask at this 

time that you take judicial notice of those.

THE COURT: Any objection?
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No objection, Your Honor.

[RESPONDENT-MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: No objection, 

already in evidence.

THE COURT: All right. So admitted. The Court will take 

judicial notice.

¶ 15 The medical records included reports that Lea had been brought to the hospital 

by her neighbors after the neighbors witnessed respondent-mother burn Lea’s feet 

with a cigarette lighter, punch Lea in the abdomen, and spray Lea in the face with 

Windex. Elliot also provided testimony regarding the reports that respondent-mother

burned Lea’s feet and left her on the porch. As this Court stated in In re A.C., the 

failure to object to the trial court taking judicial notice of such records waives 

appellate review of the issue. Id. Thus, respondent-mother’s failure to object waives 

appellate review.

¶ 16 DSS next argues that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that 

respondent-mother received ineffective assistance when counsel did not object to 

admission of the medical records.

¶ 17 A party alleging ineffective assistance of counsel “must show that counsel’s 

performance was deficient and the deficiency was so serious as to deprive [the party] 

of a fair hearing.” In re B.B., 381 N.C. 343, 2022-NCSC-67, ¶ 39 (quoting In re G.G.M., 

337 N.C. 29, 2021-NCSC-25, ¶ 35). In order to show deprivation of a fair hearing, the 

party “must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

there would have been a different result in the proceedings.” Id. (emphasis omitted). 

“[I]f a reviewing court can determine at the outset that there is no reasonable 

probability that in the absence of counsel’s alleged errors the result of the proceeding 

would have been different, then the court need not determine whether counsel’s 

performance was actually deficient.” State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 563, 324 S.E.2d 

241, 249 (1985). 

¶ 18 There is “a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the range of 

reasonable professional assistance.” State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 280, 595 S.E.2d 

381, 406 (2004) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). 

“Counsel is given wide latitude in matters of strategy, and the burden to show that 

counsel’s performance fell short of the required standard is a heavy one for [a party] 

to bear.” State v. Fletcher, 354 N.C. 455, 482, 555 S.E.2d 534, 551 (2001); see also

State v. Goss, 361 N.C. 610, 623, 651 S.E.2d 867, 875 (2007) (“This Court indulges the 

presumption that trial counsel’s representation is within the boundaries of acceptable 

professional conduct, giving counsel wide latitude in matters of strategy.” (cleaned 

up)).

¶ 19 Here, counsel for respondent-mother objected to admission of Elliot’s testimony 

regarding the report to DSS about Lea’s injuries. The trial court overruled the

objection and allowed Elliot’s testimony. Elliot testified:

A report was received alleging that on May 7th, 2019, 

[Lea], who at the time was reported as an unidentified child 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

weighing 11 pounds, was transported to the emergency 

room after being assaulted by [respondent-mother]. 

[Respondent-mother] was observed punching the minor 

child in the chest area. [Respondent-mother] spray[ed] 

unknown green liquid in [Lea]’s face, then pulled out a 

lighter and swiped the flame of the lighter across [Lea]’s

face. [Respondent-mother] was seen burning [Lea]’s feet 

with the lighter. [Respondent-mother] then laid [Lea] on 

the steps of the porch. [Lea] was then taken from 

[respondent-]mother by observers, and law enforcement 

was called. 

¶ 20 Subsequently, DSS requested the trial court to take judicial notice of Lea’s 

medical records and stated that the medical records were “previously admitted into 

evidence on May 10, 2019.” Counsel for respondent-mother was asked if there was 

any objection to the court taking judicial notice and responded, “[n]o objection, 

already in evidence.” 

¶ 21 These medical records contained the same information about the source of 

Lea’s injuries as testified to by Elliot:

[Lea] is a 2 month old female . . . who was . . . initially 

brought . . . by [Lea]’s neighbor who witnessed [respondent-

]mother abusing [Lea] physically. Per report, [respondent-

]mother was burning [Lea]’s feet with [a] cigarette 

light[er], punching her in the abdomen and spraying her 

face with Windex. She has <1% TBSA partial thickness 

burns to the soles of her feet.

¶ 22 The record reflects that respondent-mother’s counsel stated that he expressed 

no objection to the trial court's decision to take judicial notice of the relevant medical 

records and that he declined to exercise his right to object because those records were 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

“already in evidence.” Thus, in this case, unlike in many other cases, the record 

contains an explanation for the failure of respondent-mother’s counsel to lodge the 

objection that respondent-mother now claims should have been made. In addition, 

we note that neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals has directly addressed the 

issue of whether a trial court is entitled to judicially notice evidence that has 

previously been admitted into evidence at a hearing held for the purpose of 

determining whether a juvenile should continue in non-secure custody at a 

subsequent adjudication hearing, with reasonable arguments in support of and in 

opposition to the admissibility of this evidence having been advanced in the parties’

briefs before this Court. For that set of circumstances, we are unable to conclude that 

respondent-mother’s counsel’s conduct was “unreasonable” given “prevailing 

professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. As a result, we hold that 

respondent-mother’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit.

¶ 23 DSS next contends that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s 

adjudication of dependency because the trial court did not consider post-petition 

evidence.

¶ 24 “The adjudicatory hearing shall be a judicial process designed to adjudicate the 

existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.” N.C.G.S. § 

7B-802 (2021). 

Unlike in the dispositional stage, where the trial court’s 

primary consideration is the best interest of the child and 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

any evidence which is competent and relevant to a showing 

of the best interest of that child must be heard and 

considered by the trial court, evidence in the adjudicatory 

hearing is limited to a determination of the items alleged 

in the petition.

In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609, 635 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2006) (cleaned up). Thus, the 

conditions underlying determination of whether a juvenile is an abused, neglected, or 

dependent juvenile are fixed at the time of the filing of the petition. This inquiry 

focuses on the status of the child at the time the petition is filed, not the post-petition 

actions of a party.

¶ 25 Here, the Court of Appeals held that “[t]he trial court erroneously based its 

adjudication of dependency on conditions existing at the time the petition was filed 

instead of the time of the adjudication.” In re L.N.H., at *7. The Court of Appeals 

determined that the trial court erred in adjudicating Lea as dependent because “the 

trial court failed to make specific findings with respect to Lea’s father’s ability to 

provide or arrange care for her,” and because respondent-mother’s family members 

presented themselves as placement alternatives. Id. at *7. 

¶ 26 This holding does not follow the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 7B-802. At the 

time the petition was filed, respondent-father’s whereabouts were unknown and 

paternity had not been established. Further, there were no alternative placements 

available for Lea because home studies had not been completed. Thus, although 

relatives had been identified as potential alternative placements at the time the 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

petition was filed, no acceptable relative placements were available. 

¶ 27 The trial court correctly found that, at the time the petition was filed,

“[respondent-]mother did not provide any other alternative[] placements with family 

members who presented themselves to the department, [and respondent-]mother was 

unable to provide any information as it related to [respondent-father], who at the 

time, his location was unknown and the means to communicate with him remained 

unknown.” 

¶ 28 For these reasons, the trial court did not err in adjudicating Lea a dependent

juvenile. 

¶ 29 Finally, respondent-mother contends that the trial court erred by eliminating 

reunification efforts as an initial disposition following adjudication. At the time of 

the hearing in this case, N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b) provided that

[a]t any permanency planning hearing, the court shall 

adopt concurrent permanent plans and shall identify the 

primary plan and secondary plan. Reunification shall 

remain a primary or secondary plan unless the court made 

written findings under [N.C.G.S. §] 7B-901(c) or makes 

written findings that reunification efforts clearly would be 

unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s 

health or safety.

(emphasis added). In this case, the trial court ordered DSS to cease reunification 

efforts with respondent-mother as part of the initial dispositional hearing. As a 

result, the trial court was required to make written findings under N.C.G.S. § 7B901(c) before eliminating reunification as a primary or secondary plan. See In re J.M., 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

255 N.C. App. 483, 499, 804 S.E.2d 830, 840–41 (2017) (holding, that “because the 

trial court ceased reunification efforts in an order entered following an initial 

disposition hearing, N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c) was necessarily implicated.”), disc. rev. 

improvidently allowed, 371 N.C. 132, 813 S.E.2d 847 (2018).

¶ 30 At the time of the hearing in this case, N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c) provided that

[i]f the disposition order places a juvenile in the custody of 

a county department of social services, the court shall 

direct that reasonable efforts for reunification as defined 

in [N.C.G.S. §] 7B-101 shall not be required if the court 

makes written findings of fact pertaining to any of the 

following, unless the court concludes that there is 

compelling evidence warranting continued reunification 

efforts:

(1) A court of competent jurisdiction determines or has 

determined that aggravated circumstances exist 

because the parent has committed or encouraged the 

commission of, or allowed the continuation of, any of 

the following upon the juvenile:

a. Sexual abuse.

b. Chronic physical or emotional abuse.

c. Torture.

d. Abandonment.

e. Chronic or toxic exposure to alcohol or 

controlled substances that causes impairment 

of or addiction in the juvenile.

f. Any other act, practice, or conduct that 

increased the enormity or added to the 

injurious consequences of the abuse or 

neglect.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

(2) A court of competent jurisdiction terminates or has 

terminated involuntarily the parental rights of the 

parent to another child of the parent.

(3) A court of competent jurisdiction determines or has 

determined that (i) the parent has committed 

murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child 

of the parent; (ii) has aided, abetted, attempted, 

conspired, or solicited to commit murder or 

voluntary manslaughter of the child or another child 

of the parent; (iii) has committed a felony assault 

resulting in serious bodily injury to the child or 

another child of the parent; (iv) has committed 

sexual abuse against the child or another child of the 

parent; or (v) has been required to register as a sex 

offender on any government-administered registry.

Thus, before eliminating reunification efforts with respondent-mother, the trial court 

in this case was required to make written findings pertaining to one of the 

circumstances listed above. See J.M., 255 N.C. App. at 500, 804 S.E.2d at 841.

¶ 31 In its order, the trial court found that “[r]eunification efforts with the mother 

would be clearly unsuccessful and inconsistent with the juvenile[’s] health and safety” 

and that “[t]here are aggravating circumstances that exist as it relates to the mother 

and juvenile, whereas the mother’s conduct caused serious injuries to the juvenile.” 

Although the trial court did not specifically cite N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c), its reference to 

“aggravating circumstances” is sufficient to invoke that statutory provision. See In 

re A.P.W., 378 N.C. 405, 2021-NCSC-93, ¶ 20 (noting that “[t]he trial court’s written 

findings must address the statute’s concerns but need not quote its exact language”) 

(quoting In re L.M.T., 367 N.C. 165, 168, 752 S.E.2d 453, 455 (2013)). Thus, the 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

question before this Court on review is

limited to whether there is competent evidence in the 

record to support the findings of fact and whether the 

findings of fact support the conclusions of law. The trial 

court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported 

by any competent evidence. Uncontested findings are 

binding on appeal. The trial court’s dispositional choices—

including the decision to eliminate reunification from the 

permanent plan—are reviewed for abuse of discretion. An 

abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is so 

arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a 

reasoned decision.

Id., ¶ 14–15 (cleaned up). Given that respondent-mother has challenged the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding of aggravated 

circumstances under N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c), we review those findings to determine if 

they were supported by competent evidence. See In re B.C.T., 265 N.C. App. 176, 

186–87, 828 S.E.2d 50, 57 (2019).

¶ 32 As an initial matter, the trial court’s mere declaration that “there are 

aggravating circumstances that exist,” without explaining what those circumstances 

are, is not sufficient to constitute a valid finding for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c). 

Cf., In re A.W., 377 N.C. 238, 2021-NSCS-44, ¶ 31–32 (holding that there was 

sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the parent’s conduct with 

respect to the juvenile “increase[d] the enormity and add[ed] to the consequences of 

the neglect of [the juvenile] where the parents had “consistently worked together to 

conceal” the abuse and neglect that had led to the death of the juvenile’s sister given 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

that “there is no means by which [the trial court] can address what caused the death 

of [the sister] and thereby [e]nsure the safety of [the juvenile]”). Although the trial 

court noted that “[respondent-]mother’s misconduct caused serious injuries to the 

juvenile,” the evidence presented in this case cannot support a finding of any of the 

aggravated circumstances listed in N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c)(1)a–e.

¶ 33 In apparent recognition of this fact, DSS relies on N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c)(1)f, 

which permits the trial court to cease reunification efforts if it makes written findings 

of “[a]ny other act, practice, or conduct” on the part of the respondent-parent “that 

increased the enormity or added to the injurious consequences of the abuse or 

neglect.” DSS contends that the trial court’s findings show that Lea sustained severe 

burns on the soles of her feet while in respondent-mother’s care, that respondentmother recalled drinking alcohol before Lea was injured while lacking any memory 

of hurting Lea, that Lea was left alone on the front porch of respondent-mother’s 

house, and that Lea’s injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization for two 

days and continued medical treatment for several weeks thereafter, so that

“[respondent-mother’s] conduct and actions toward Lea on 7 May 2019 ‘increased the 

enormity’ and ‘added to the injurious consequences’ of evidence supporting the court’s 

adjudications of abuse and neglect within the meaning of [N.C.G.S. §] 7B-901(c)(1)f.” 

¶ 34 The fundamental defect in DSS’s argument is that it relies upon evidence 

necessary to support the trial court’s adjudication of abuse and neglect to show the 
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

existence of conduct that exacerbated the consequences of that abuse and neglect. In 

other words, although DSS argues that respondent-mother’s conduct in burning Lea’s 

feet and leaving her on the porch increased the enormity and added to the injurious 

consequences of burning Lea’s feet and leaving her on the porch, N.C.G.S. § 7B901(c)(1)f requires a showing of the existence of “any other act, practice, or conduct,” 

which seems to us to require that the evidence in aggravation involve something in 

addition to the facts that rise to the initial adjudication of abuse and/or neglect. See 

A.W., ¶ 32; see also In re C.L.K., 2022 WL 4841743, 2022-NCCOA-661, ¶ 14 

(unpublished) (concluding that the trial court’s extensive findings of fact 

demonstrated how the respondent-mother’s conduct “increased the enormity or added 

to the injurious consequences of the abuse [and] neglect” of her children, with the 

trial court having found that the respondent-mother continued to allow her boyfriend 

to live in the house for months despite knowledge that he was sexually abusing one 

of her children and that respondent-mother was failing to provide appropriate care 

for her daughter despite awareness of her daughter’s extensive medical needs). As a 

result, since the allegation that respondent-mother burned Lea’s feet and left her on 

the porch cannot serve as conduct that “increase[ed] the enormity” or “add[ed] to the 

injurious consequences” of that conduct, the evidence does not support a 

determination that any of the aggravating factors specified in N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c)(1)

exist in this case.
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

¶ 35 On the other hand, we do believe that there is sufficient evidence in the record 

to support a determination by the trial court that reunification efforts were not 

required pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c)(3)(iii), which allows the cessation of 

reunification efforts in an initial dispositional order in the event that the parent “has 

committed a felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury to the child[.]” As noted 

above, following the events that led to Lea’s removal from respondent-mother’s 

custody, respondent-mother was arrested and charged with felony child abuse 

inflicting serious injury. In our view, the record developed before the trial court 

contains ample evidence that tends, if believed, to show that respondent-mother’s 

actions in burning Lea’s feet involved the commission of a felonious assault upon the 

child that resulted in serious bodily injury. Although the trial court did not make the 

findings necessary to permit the cessation of reunification efforts with respondentmother based upon N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c)(3)(iii), it certainly could have done so had it 

chosen to make such a determination. As a result, we vacate that portion of the trial 

court’s order ceasing reunification efforts with respondent-mother based on a finding 

the existence of aggravated circumstances and remand to the trial court with 

instructions to enter appropriate findings addressing the issue of whether efforts to 

reunify respondent-mother with Lea should be ceased pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B901(c). See In re L.R.L.B., 377 N.C. 311, 2021-NCSC-49, ¶ 38 (remanding to the trial 

court where it failed to make written findings as required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-
IN RE L.N.H.

2022-NCSC-109

Opinion of the Court

906.2(d)(3)).

III. Conclusion

¶ 36 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in 

adjudicating the child abused, neglected, and dependent, and did not err in 

eliminating reunification efforts with respondent-mother. We also hold that 

respondent-mother’s counsel provided effective assistance. We reverse the decision 

of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.