IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA23-168

Filed 3 September 2024

Carteret County, No. 22 JA 52

In the Matter of: A.D.H.

Appeal by Petitioner from order entered 19 September 2022 by Judge W. David 

McFadyen III in Carteret County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22

January 2024.

Bill Ward & Kirby Smith, P.A., by Kirby H. Smith, III, for petitioner-appellant 

Carteret County Department of Social Services.

Matthew D. Wunsche for guardian ad litem.

Schulz Stephenson Law, by Sundee G. Stephenson and Bradley N. Schulz, for 

respondent-appellee father.

No brief for respondent-appellee mother.

MURPHY, Judge.

Petitioner-appellee Carteret County Department of Social Services 

(“Petitioner”) appeals from an order granting various motions filed by respondentfather (“Father”) and dismissing the juvenile petition. For the reasons below, we 

vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

A. Prior Proceedings
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

A.D.H. (“Alice”)1 was born to Father and respondent-mother (“Mother”) in 

2013. In February 2021, Mother filed a complaint in Carteret County District Court 

seeking custody of Alice. On or about 9 March 2021, the trial court entered a 

temporary custody order granting Mother and Father joint legal custody of Alice, with 

Mother having primary physical custody and Father having visitation. Father’s 

visitation included overnight visits and a “two weeks on/two weeks off” schedule 

during Alice’s summer vacation.

In March 2021, Alice began making statements to schoolmates and her school 

guidance counselor that Father had sexually abused her. These reports were 

ultimately relayed to Petitioner then forwarded to the Craven County Department of 

Social Services (“Craven County DSS”) due to a purported conflict. Craven County 

DSS opened an investigation into the alleged abuse and arranged a trauma screen 

with the Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”), a Child Medical Evaluation (“CME”), and a 

Child and Family Evaluation (“CFE”) for Alice. By November 2021, the Ashe County 

Sheriff’s Office had also opened an investigation into Father’s conduct.

On 5 April 2022, the trial court entered a permanent child custody order 

(“CCO”) in the custody dispute finding any allegations of abuse were unfounded. It 

found that “after two (2) investigations by the Ashe County Sheriff’s [Office] it was 

determined that there was not sufficient evidence to charge [Father] with any 

1 We use a pseudonym to protect the juvenile’s identity and for ease of reading. 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

wrongdoing.” Additionally, Alice had made no disclosures about sexual abuse during 

the CAC trauma screen, CME, or CFE arranged by Craven County DSS. 

Furthermore, “[a]ll professionals involved in [the custody] matter[,]” including 

Craven County social workers, Ashe County detectives, and the CFE evaluator, “had 

concerns that [Mother] was coaching the minor child and feeding into a false 

narrative with regards to” the allegations against Father. The trial court found there 

had been additional reports of abuse since March 2021, but none of the reports had 

been substantiated. Instead, Mother appeared to be creating a false narrative around 

Father’s alleged abuse of Alice in an attempt to obtain full custody of Alice by (1) 

taking Alice to a substance abuse counselor who “was not qualified to counsel the 

minor child as she was not even a licensed clinical mental health counselor, had a 

lack of training to interview the child, and was quite possibly indorsing a false 

narrative when counseling the child”; (2) “misrepresent[ing] the findings of DSS to 

various professionals”; and (3) giving untruthful testimony at the custody hearing. 

The trial court ultimately found “[F]ather did not abuse the minor child in any way. 

The Court does find as fact that the Defendant father did not engage in inappropriate 

parenting or activities with the minor child.” The trial court ordered, inter alia, that 

Father be granted primary legal and physical custody of Alice and prohibited anyone 

except Alice’s current, qualified therapist from discussing any past allegations with 

Alice.

On 17 June 2022, Craven County DSS filed an “Interference Petition Pursuant 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

to [N.C.G.S.] § 7B-303” alleging Father was obstructing or interfering with its 

investigation. The interference petition alleged that, on 28 March 2022, there was 

another report that Father abused Alice. This report was made to Petitioner and 

referred to Craven County DSS. The interference petition alleged Alice was 

recommended another CME, but Father was refusing to allow Alice to participate in 

the examination. Craven County DSS moved for the trial court to order that Father 

cease obstructing its investigation and that Craven County DSS be allowed to conduct 

home studies, interviews, and medical examinations as necessary for its 

investigation.

On or about 15 July 2022, nunc pro tunc 17 June 2022, the trial court entered 

an order dismissing the interference petition (“IPO”). The trial court found counsel 

for Craven County DSS “stated to the Court that DSS could complete its[]

investigation without requiring a medical evaluation of the child and without 

requiring further home visits at the Respondent father’s residence[,] [but] [t]hey did, 

however, need a child and family evaluation” completed by someone other the initial 

evaluator. The court concluded “[g]ood cause exists to grant Respondent father’s 

Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice[,]” and dismissed the interference petition, broadly 

reiterating much of what had already been said in the CCO.

B. Current Proceeding

On 29 August 2022, Petitioner filed a juvenile petition alleging Alice was an 

abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile. The juvenile petition acknowledged the 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

ongoing civil custody dispute and interference proceeding but did not discuss any of 

the prior orders in detail or delineate which allegations were found noncredible. The 

allegations in the juvenile petition recited at length verbatim statements made by 

Alice to various reporters that she was repeatedly sexually abused by Father. These 

specific statements are not necessary to resolution of this appeal and are not 

discussed in detail.

The petition alleged Alice made statements before entry of the CCO and IPO 

in March 2021, May 2021, September 2021, October 2021, and March 2022, as well 

as statements after entry of the CCO and IPO. Most recently, Petitioner received a 

report in July 2022 that, while at a sleepover with a friend, Alice disclosed sexual 

abuse by Father. Thereafter, one of Petitioner’s social workers, Kelly Dorman, 

interviewed Alice at her school on 29 August 2022. Alice made additional disclosures

of abuse at this interview. However, the timeline of alleged abuse was not clear from 

Alice’s statements. Alice stated that the abuse could have occurred as far back as two 

years in the past or may have still been ongoing. The juvenile petition ultimately 

alleged Alice was abused and neglected due to sexual abuse by Father and dependent 

because neither Father nor Mother were able to provide for Alice’s care or supervision 

or had appropriate alternative childcare arrangements.

On 29 August 2022, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioner

nonsecure custody of Alice.

On 31 August 2022, Father filed various motions to dismiss, motions in limine, 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

motions to sanction DSS officials or hold the officials in contempt, and a response to 

the juvenile petition. The two relevant motions to dismiss asserted the juvenile 

petition should be dismissed (1) pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for 

failure to state a claim and (2) pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral 

estoppel. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion specifically asserted the juvenile petition failed to 

state a claim because “[t]he claims made in the Petition are a restatement of the 

claims previously made and litigated in” the CCO and IPO and, therefore, Petitioner 

was barred from relitigating these claims in the juvenile petition. The preclusion 

motion similarly asserted the CCO, IPO, and a 15 July 2022 temporary emergency 

custody order entered in the custody matter, including all findings of fact and 

conclusions of law that Father had not abused Alice, were binding on the trial court 

and warranted dismissal of the juvenile petition with prejudice. Father also filed one 

motion to hold Social Worker Dorman in contempt (“Contempt Motion”) because she

interviewed Alice on 29 August 2022 with full knowledge of the provisions of the CCO 

prohibiting anyone but Alice’s therapists from discussing the prior allegations with 

Alice. One of Father’s motions in limine requested Father be allowed to examine 

Dorman under oath regarding circumstances surrounding the nonsecure custody 

order, juvenile petition, and “the events occurring specifically as they relate to the 

minor child . . . since the entry of” the nonsecure custody order on 29 August 2022.

On 1 September 2022, the trial court held a hearing and allowed Father to 

examine Dorman. On 19 September 2022, the trial court entered a written order 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

dismissing the juvenile petition (“Dismissal Order”). Based on Dorman’s testimony, 

the trial court found she was aware of the CCO and IPO before she interviewed Alice, 

that the CCO found Father did not abuse Alice, and that “[n]o one, other than the 

child’s current, qualified therapist” was permitted to discuss the previous allegations 

against Father with Alice. The trial court found that, “[b]ased upon the four corners 

of the Petition filed in this cause there are no colorable allegations of abuse, neglect 

or dependency that are alleged to have occurred subsequent to the” CCO and IPO, 

and the prior allegations against Father had been previously litigated and could not

form the basis for the juvenile petition. The trial court granted Father’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion, preclusion motion, and motion in limine to examine Dorman; declared “it was 

not necessary for the Court to hear, and rule, upon Respondent-father’s other Motions 

in this matter”; and dismissed the juvenile petition with prejudice.

Petitioner appealed; and, on 13 May 2024, while the appeal was still pending, 

Mother waived her right to counsel before the trial court. On 29 May 2024, we entered 

an order providing Mother until 14 June 2024 to file an appellee brief, if desired. 

Mother did not file an appellee brief within the allotted time window. 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Petitioner presents four issues for our review: (1) whether Father 

gave Petitioner adequate notice of his motions to dismiss; (2) whether the trial court 

reviewed the juvenile petition under the correct standard when ruling on the Rule 

12(b)(6) motion; (3) whether Petitioner was precluded by res judicata and collateral 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

estoppel from litigating the issues in the juvenile petition; and (4) whether the trial 

court abused its discretion by granting one of Father’s motions in limine and 

sanctioning Social Worker Dorman.

We need not address the first issue because the second and third issues are 

dispositive; the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting Father’s motions, and 

we must vacate the dismissal order. We do not address the fourth issue because the 

record indicates the trial court did not address Father’s Contempt Motion or 

otherwise sanction Social Worker Dorman.

2

A. Preservation and Motion to Dismiss Appeal

We preliminarily address preservation of Petitioner’s second and third issues

for appellate review. Father argues both in his brief and in a separate motion to 

dismiss Petitioner’s appeal filed before us that Petitioner waived appellate review of 

the trial court’s rulings on his motions because Petitioner did not object during 

Father’s arguments on his motions or the trial court’s rendering of its ruling on his 

motions. But, here, Petitioner’s issues were automatically preserved for review

because Petitioner is very clearly challenging whether the trial court’s decision to 

grant Father’s motions is supported by its findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding the preclusive effect of the prior orders on the juvenile petition. Such issues 

2 As discussed above, the district court did not rule on Father’s motions other than the Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motion, preclusion motion, and motion in limine seeking to examine Social Worker Dorman. The 

district court did not address contempt in the dismissal order other than to note Father filed the 

Contempt Motion.
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

are automatically preserved for review. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (“Any such issue 

that . . . was deemed preserved or taken without any such action, including, but not 

limited to, whether the judgment is supported by the verdict or by the findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, . . . may be made the basis of an issue presented on appeal.”); 

see also Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 90 N.C. App. 464, 467-68 (1988) 

(citations omitted) (“[P]laintiffs’ notice of appeal is sufficient to raise the limited 

issues of law relevant to our review of Rule 12(b)(6) motions and summary judgments.

We will therefore . . . address plaintiffs’ basic contention that the face of the record 

shows that neither LMCC nor GMC were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”), 

aff’d, 326 N.C. 387 (1990). Because the two remaining issues are preserved for 

review, we deny Father’s motion to dismiss this appeal and reach the merits of 

Petitioner’s arguments.

B. Motions to Dismiss

Both motions assert the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata barred 

Petitioner from relitigating allegations of abuse in the juvenile petition that predate 

the CCO and IPO. A review of the record indicates the trial court determined, as a 

matter of law, that both the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and preclusion motion should be 

granted because the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata operated to bar 

Petitioner from relitigating allegations in the juvenile petition that were litigated in 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

both the CCO and IPO.

3 We first address the underlying issue of law, whether 

collateral estoppel or res judicata could form the basis for granting either motion to 

dismiss based on the findings and conclusions in the CCO, before more specifically 

addressing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

1. Preclusion Motion

Whether a court is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata “is a question 

of law unrelated to any specific facts of a case. Questions of law are reviewed de 

novo.” Bluebird Corp. v. Aubin, 188 N.C. App. 671, 678, disc. rev. denied, 362 N.C. 

679 (2008). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely 

substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” In re K.S., 380 N.C. 60, 64 

(2022) (marks and citations omitted).

Although the parties’ dispute pertains to both collateral estoppel and res 

judicata, the present dispute is most squarely governed by collateral estoppel. 

Collateral estoppel prevents “the subsequent adjudication of a previously determined 

[factual] issue, even if the subsequent action is based on an entirely different 

claim.” Whitacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 (2004). “Under the doctrine 

of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, a final judgment on the merits prevents 

3 Most of the trial court’s findings of fact indicate it based its ruling as to Father’s motions on the 

preclusive effect of the CCO. However, a review of the dismissal order indicates that the trial court

also noted “there are no colorable allegations of abuse, neglect or dependency that are alleged to have 

occurred subsequent to” the IPO. Especially given the heavy discussion of the CCO in the IPO, we 

believe the trial court correctly considered the preclusive effect of both orders.
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the prior 

action in a later suit involving a different cause of action between the parties or their 

privies.” Johnson v. Starboard Ass’n, Inc., 244 N.C. App. 619, 627 (2016) (marks 

omitted) (citing State ex rel. Tucker v. Frinzi, 344 N.C. 411, 414 (1996)). “Collateral 

estoppel will apply when: (1) a prior suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; 

(2) identical issues were involved; (3) the issue was actually litigated in the prior suit 

and necessary to the judgment; and (4) the issue was actually determined.” Youse v. 

Duke Energy Corp., 171 N.C. App. 187, 193 (2005) (marks omitted). For present 

purposes, we see no meaningful dispute that both the CCO and IPO were final 

judgments on the merits, contained at least some overlapping factual issues with the 

present juvenile petition, and were actually litigated and determined. Moreover, for 

purposes of privity,4 we note that both Carteret and Craven County DSS intervened 

in the custody action; and, as co-actors with respect to this family and arms of the 

State, we do not see a reason to treat them as analytically distinct with respect to the 

4 We note that the significance of privity as a component of collateral estoppel has been 

somewhat murky as applied by our Court, with some cases acknowledging privity as an essential 

element of collateral estoppel, see Perryman v. Town of Summerfield, 899 S.E.2d 884, 893 (N.C. Ct. 

App. 2024); Green v. Carter, 900 S.E.2d 108, 114 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024); Johnson, 244 N.C. App. at 627, 

and others omitting mention of it altogether, see Collier v. Bryant, 216 N.C. App. 419, 423 (2011); 

Youse, 171 N.C. App. at 193. The cause may be that, when our Supreme Court last spoke at length on 

the topic, it was unclear whether the concept of privity was subsumed into the requirement that “the 

party against whom the estoppel is asserted enjoyed a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue 

in the earlier proceeding.” Whitacre, 358 N.C. at 15, 35-37 (omitting privity from the basic definition 

of collateral estoppel while noting later in its analysis that privity is required for collateral estoppel to 

apply). Without further guidance, we do not intend for this opinion to resolve any outstanding 

ambiguity as to the role of privity in collateral estoppel cases, only to explain why we discuss privity 

when some of our other cases have not; we think it the better practice to err on the side of inclusion.
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

IPO.

The more meaningful dispute, we think, is whether collateral estoppel applies 

in this case given the discrepancy in the standard of review between the CCO and the 

present litigation. DSS argues, citing our holding in In re K.A., that “collateral 

estoppel cannot apply where the proceedings involve a different burden of proof.” See 

In re K.A., 233 N.C. App. 119, 127 (2014) (citing State v. Safrit, 154 N.C. App. 727, 

729 (2002), disc. rev. denied, 357 N.C. 65 (2003)). However, this was an 

overstatement—and oversimplification—of the existing law, directly contradicting 

long-established precedent and failing to fully recognize the conceptual 

underpinnings of collateral estoppel. North Carolina’s appellate courts have, for 

nearly two centuries, recognized the availability of collateral estoppel as between a 

prior criminal proceeding and a subsequent civil proceeding, directly contradicting 

the idea that a mere difference in burdens of proof renders the doctrine inapplicable. 

Mays v. Clanton, 169 N.C. App. 239, 242 (2005) (citing Burton v. City of Durham, 118 

N.C. App. 676, 680 (1995) and Hill v. Winn–Dixie Charlotte, Inc., 100 N.C. App. 518 

(1990)) (“[T]his Court has upheld collateral estoppel of an issue in a civil suit when 

that issue was previously established as an element in a criminal conviction.”); Griffis 

v. Sellars, 20 N.C. 315, 315 (1838) (“In an action for a malicious prosecution, a verdict 

and judgment of conviction in a Court of competent jurisdiction[] . . . is conclusive 

evidence of probable cause, and precludes the plaintiff in the action for the malicious 

prosecution from showing the contrary.”). These cases demonstrate that the actual 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

principle animating the result in In re K.A. was that collateral estoppel cannot apply 

to a proposition proven in a prior action when the subsequent action involves a higher 

standard of proof. 

Nonetheless, even this statement falls short of explaining the whole of 

collateral estoppel. Our caselaw, when viewed holistically, demonstrates that 

collateral estoppel operates on a system of transitivity; a factual proposition is 

deemed true or false in the subsequent action if the truth value of the proposition in 

that action logically follows from the truth or falsehood of the same proposition in the 

prior action, bearing in mind the relative burdens of proof. Put differently, assume 

that the extent to which a given proposition is proven in a prior case is quantifiable 

as a number X; that the minimum confidence threshold at which any proposition is 

deemed proven in a prior case—in other words, the burden of proof—is quantifiable 

as a number A; and that the minimum confidence threshold at which at which any 

proposition is deemed proven in a subsequent action is quantifiable as a number B. 

In such a system, knowing the relationship between X and A, as well as the 

relationship between A and B, can—but does not always—necessarily imply a 

relationship between X and B. 

Our caselaw bears this out. For example, the above-referenced holdings 

applying collateral estoppel in a prior criminal case to a subsequent civil case, see 

Mays, 169 N.C. App. at 242, Griffis, 20 N.C. at 315, are expressions of the principle 

that, if X equals or exceeds A and A exceeds B, then X must exceed B. The outcome 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

of these holdings is an expression of the broader transitive relationship outlined 

above. 

Our holding in In re: K.A. is, taken in context, also an expression of this broader 

transitive relationship. In K.A., the trial court declined to apply collateral estoppel 

where there was affirmative finding of abuse in a prior custody order. In re K.A., 233 

N.C. App. at 127. The subsequent action—a juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency 

case—was subject to a higher standard of proof than the first. Id. In other words, if 

X equals or exceeds A but A is less than B, we cannot know the value of X relative to 

B.

Finally, in Fox v. Johnson, we demonstrated, consistent with the same 

transitive relationship, that the doctrine continues to apply when discussing a failure

to meet a burden:

It is well settled that “[a] dismissal under [North Carolina 

Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 12(b)(6) operates as an 

adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies that 

the dismissal is without prejudice.” Hoots v. Pryor, 106 

N.C. App. 397, 404[] . . . (citations omitted), disc. review 

denied, 332 N.C. 345[] . . . (1992); see also [N.C.G.S.] § 1A1, Rule 41(b) (2013). However, the federal court did not 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims under North Carolina 

Rule 12(b)(6), but rather dismissed them pursuant to 

Federal Rule 12(b)(6). See Fox, 807 F.Supp.2d at 484. No 

North Carolina case law or statute that we have discovered 

directly addresses the question of whether a dismissal 

under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) operates as an adjudication on 

the merits so as to collaterally estop a plaintiff from relitigating a claim or issue in our State’s courts. Of course, 

if the evaluation of a claim in light of a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) were identical to the 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

evaluation made in response to a motion under North 

Carolina Rule 12(b)(6), it would be clear that the federal 

court’s dismissal had adjudicated and settled the same 

issue Plaintiffs raise in their state complaint. However, 

our review of the pertinent statutes and case law 

demonstrates that the standard under Federal Rule 

12(b)(6), which the federal court here held Plaintiffs failed 

to meet, is a different, higher pleading standard than 

mandated under our own General Statutes. In other 

words, the fact that Plaintiffs’ allegations of proximate 

cause in the federal complaint did not meet the pleading 

standard under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) does not necessarily

mean that their allegations of proximate cause would have 

resulted in dismissal pursuant to North Carolina Rule 

12(b)(6).

Fox v. Johnson, 243 N.C. App. 274, 285 (2015), disc. rev. denied, 368 N.C. 679 (2016). 

We see in Fox that, if X is less than A but A is greater than B, we cannot necessarily 

know whether X is also less than B or somewhere between B and A. See also Hussey 

v. Cheek, 31 N.C. App. 148, 149 (1976) (“When the burden of proof at the second trial 

is less than that at the first, the failure to carry that burden at the first trial cannot 

raise an estoppel to carrying the lesser burden at the second trial.”); Safrit, 154 N.C. 

App. at 729 (holding that the prior failure to establish Defendant’s existing

convictions under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard did not preclude a 

subsequent finding that those convictions took place under the lower preponderance 

standard).

As it pertains to this case, “the applicable standard of proof in child custody 

cases is by a preponderance, or greater weight, of the evidence[,]” Speagle v. Seitz, 

354 N.C. 525, 533 (2001) (citations omitted), and “[t]he standard of proof for an 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

adjudicatory order entered on a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency in a 

juvenile matter[] . . . is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” In re K.A., 233 N.C. App. at 

127 (quoting N.C.G.S. § 7B-805 (2013)); see also N.C.G.S. § 7B-805 (2023) (“The 

allegations in a petition alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent 

shall be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”). “Clear and convincing evidence 

is [a] greater [standard] than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in

most civil cases.” In re A.K., 178 N.C. App. 727, 730 (2006) (marks and citations

omitted). Moreover, the proposition that the movant was required to prove in both 

cases was that Father abused Alice—a proposition which, under the preponderance 

standard, the trial court ruled had not been proven in the CCO. In other words, in 

keeping with the earlier model, we know that X (Father abused Alice) is less than A

(preponderance of the evidence), and we know that A is less than B (clear and 

convincing evidence). Since we can necessarily deduce from this relationship that X 

must also be less than B, collateral estoppel applies to the issue of whether Father 

abused Alice. The doctrine therefore precludes a contrary finding in the present 

action, and the trial court properly invoked it as to the allegations of abuse against 

Father already covered by the CCO.

Any future litigants, of course, need not cite our holding in this case in 

algebraic terms; it is enough to say that, where a party fails to establish a fact in a 

prior case under a lower burden of proof, collateral estoppel applies to preclude a 

subsequent finding that the same fact has been established under a higher standard 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

of proof. 

Having established the preclusive effect of the CCO, we now turn to the 

preclusive effect of the IPO. This analysis is far simpler: The burdens of proof 

applicable to both the interference petition and the juvenile petition were clear and 

convincing evidence, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-805 (2023), so collateral estoppel naturally 

applies to the failure to prove abuse. As the IPO’s conclusions that Father had not 

been shown to abuse Alice were determinative as to the allegations through those 

alleged in the interference petition, this means that, in addition to the preclusion of 

the allegations contained in the CCO, the IPO also precludes the allegations arising 

in the timeframe it alleged; namely, 28 March 2022. Thus, these issues were also 

correctly dismissed by the trial court as barred by collateral estoppel. 

Nonetheless, to the extent the trial court held that all factual allegations in 

the juvenile petition were barred by collateral estoppel, thereby justifying its

dismissal in the entirety, this ruling was too broad. Specifically, we note that the 

juvenile petition appears to further allege instances of abuse taking place in July 

2022, supported by evidence gathered through at least August of 2022. These 

allegations, which were not estopped by the earlier orders, render dismissal 

inappropriate. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled estopped most, but not all, 

of the factual issues in the juvenile petition; but, since factual issues pertaining to 

allegations after March of 2022 remain, the trial court erred in dismissing the entire 

petition.
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 18 -

2. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

The trial court also granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and found “there are no 

colorable allegations of abuse, neglect or dependency that are alleged to have 

occurred” after the CCO and IPO. As to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,

this Court reviews de novo whether, as a matter of law, the 

allegations of the complaint . . . are sufficient to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. We consider the 

allegations in the complaint true, construe the complaint 

liberally, and only reverse the trial court’s denial of a 

motion to dismiss if plaintiff is entitled to no relief under 

any set of facts which could be proven in support of the 

claim.

In re K.G., 260 N.C. App. 373, 376 (2018) (citations omitted). Nevertheless,

the review of an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss does not involve an assessment or review of the 

trial court’s reasoning. Rather, the appellate court affirms 

or reverses the disposition of the trial court—the granting 

of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss—based on the 

appellate court’s review of whether the allegations of the 

complaint are sufficient to state a claim.

Taylor v. Bank of Am., N.A., 382 N.C. 677, 679 (2022). Therefore, we ordinarily ignore 

the trial court’s rationale in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. But, here, 

because the trial court determined the juvenile petition failed to state a claim based 

on the idea that collateral estoppel and res judicata precluded Petitioner from 

asserting the entire spectrum of abuse allegations contained therein, we note that, to 

the extent the trial court’s ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion was based on collateral 
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 19 -

estoppel and res judicata,

5 it is erroneous, in part, for the same reasons as above. See 

supra Part B-2.

As to whether the juvenile petition states a claim, Chapter 7B specifically 

provides that a valid petition must include “allegations of facts sufficient to invoke 

jurisdiction over the juvenile[,]” N.C.G.S. § 7B-402 (2023), including allegations that 

the juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-200 (2023) (“The 

court has exclusive, original jurisdiction over any case involving a juvenile who is 

alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent.”). An abused juvenile, neglected 

juvenile, and dependent juvenile are specifically defined in Chapter 7B. See N.C.G.S. 

§ 7B-101 (2023) (defining abuse, neglect, and dependency). For purposes of the 

instant appeal, a juvenile whose parent commits a sex offense defined by Chapter 14 

upon the juvenile is abused. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(1)(d) (2023). A neglected juvenile 

is one whose parent “[d]oes not provide proper care, supervision, or discipline[,]” or 

“[c]reates or allows to be created a living environment that is injurious to the 

juvenile’s welfare.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15)(a), (e) (2023). And a dependent juvenile is 

[a] juvenile in need of assistance or placement because (i) 

the juvenile has no parent . . . responsible for the juvenile’s 

care or supervision or (ii) the juvenile’s parent . . . is unable 

to provide for the juvenile’s care or supervision and lacks 

an appropriate alternative child care arrangement. 

N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(9) (2023).

5 As discussed above, while the preclusion motion discusses both res judicata and collateral 

estoppel, collateral estoppel is the more directly applicable doctrine.
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 20 -

Here, the juvenile petition contained sufficient allegations to state a claim that 

Alice was an abused, neglected, and dependent juvenile within the meaning of 

Chapter 7B despite the partially preclusive effect of the CCO and IPO. The petition 

alleged that Alice was abused and neglected because Father sexually abused Alice, 

and at least some of these alleged acts occurred after those already ruled upon in the 

CCO and IPO. The petition specifically alleged that Father committed an 

enumerated sex offense under Chapter 14 against Alice and that such abuse 

constituted improper supervision and created an injurious environment for Alice. 

The petition also alleged that Alice was dependent because neither of her parents 

were appropriate caregivers—Father was an inappropriate caregiver due to the

allegations of sexual abuse, and Mother was an inappropriate caregiver due to the 

allegations that she had coached Alice to accuse Father of sexual abuse—and there 

was no other caregiver available on either side of Alice’s family.

Considering all of the remaining factual allegations, the juvenile petition was

sufficient to state a claim under Chapter 7B, even when excluding factually precluded 

subject matter. However, we further note that Father’s pending motions before the 

trial court may—depending on the relief granted, if any—result in the striking of 

some or all of the petition, which may, by extension, affect the appropriateness of any 

further Rule 12(b)(6) rulings on remand. In light of this potential, rather than 

reversing the dismissal order, we vacate the order and remand for consideration of 

whether, after resolution of all potentially relevant motions and in light of our
IN RE A.D.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 21 -

holding, any allegations remain for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). 

CONCLUSION

The allegations in the juvenile petition were not fully barred by the doctrine of

collateral estoppel, and the factually precluded portions of the juvenile petition did 

not themselves merit dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). As our holding with respect to 

collateral estoppel unmoots some number of motions potentially impacting the 

materiality of the remaining factual allegations in the juvenile petition, the dismissal 

order is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Judges COLLINS and HAMPSON concur.