An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA15-237

Filed: 1 September 2015

Brunswick County, Nos. 14 JA 85-87

IN THE MATTER OF: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Appeal by respondent from order entered 25 November 2014 by Judge Sherry 

Dew Prince in Brunswick County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17

August 2015.

Elva L. Jess, for petitioner-appellee Brunswick County Department of Social 

Services.

McGuire Woods LLP, by T. Richmond McPherson and Amanda W. Abshire, for 

Guardian ad Litem.

Robert W. Ewing for respondent-appellant mother.

TYSON, Judge.

Mary F. Harvey, (“Respondent-mother”), appeals from the trial court’s order

adjudicating her minor children D.H., Ja. H., and Jo. H. (collectively, “the children”), 

as neglected and dependent juveniles and ordering the children to remain in the 

physical and legal custody of the Brunswick County Department of Social Services 

(“DSS”). We affirm.

I. Background
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Respondent-mother’s three sons were born in 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Respondent-mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress 

disorder, and takes daily medications. Each of the three children was diagnosed with 

mental health issues and requires significant drug regimens. Respondent-father was 

also diagnosed with significant mental health issues. In the adjudication order, the 

trial court found “[t]here is a level of disfunction [sic] in the household as a result of 

the mental illnesses with which each family member has been diagnosed.” Each child 

exhibits aggressive behaviors. 

School personnel stated concerns with the children’s cleanliness and attire. 

Their clothes often did not fit and they arrived to school with dirt on their hands and 

faces. School personnel were also concerned whether the children received adequate 

food at home. The children were provided food at school. Each child was sent home 

after school on Fridays with a backpack of food for the weekend. 

Beginning in April of 2014, an organization named Helping Hands began 

providing intensive in-home services to the family to address the children’s aggressive 

behaviors. Helping Hands staff was concerned about high dosages of medications 

each family member had been prescribed. While Helping Hands was involved with 

the family, the trial court found little improvement was made in the manner the 

parents handled the children’s behaviors. On one occasion, Ja. H. had cut his finger 

on a broken window. The bandage on the bloody finger was unclean. The social 
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

worker assigned to the case visited the family on three dates in June of 2014. The 

children were dirty and presented with pungent body odor. 

On 9 June 2014, Respondent-mother executed a verified complaint seeking a 

domestic violence protective order against the children’s father. She alleged the 

father had choked her and all the children were present during the altercation. 

Respondent-mother failed to appear in court to prosecute the action. 

A social worker visited the home on 17 June 2014. Ja. H. was vomiting, and 

the vomit appeared to contain blood. Respondent-mother stated that she would call 

the doctor the following day. The social worker called 911 and arranged for the child 

to be transported to the hospital. While the social worker was present at the home, 

D.H.’s behavior was erratic. He picked up a tire iron and approached the social 

worker. He put a knife to his chest and stated that he was going to kill himself. 

The court found Respondent-mother “incapable of dealing with the children’s 

behaviors” and she “did not have any control.” The social worker “had to control the 

behavior that each child presented with and the illness that [Ja. H.] had.” Evidence 

showed the children were extremely dirty and smelled “as if something was rotten.” 

They were subsequently taken from the home and placed in the custody of DSS. 

In its adjudication order, the trial court made the following unchallenged 

finding:

[Respondent-mother] was not able to appropriately provide 

for her children’s care on June 17 and presented with 
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

challenges on numerous other occasions. She did not 

address their medical needs. She did not address their 

needs for appropriate hygiene. She has failed to properly 

administer prescriptions, choosing to give them 

medications “early,” she did not possess appropriate 

parenting skills to deal with [Ja. H.]’s aggressive 

behaviors, she did not provide necessary medical care. The 

children were exposed to domestic violence and their 

behaviors were exacerbated following the incident as 

shown in school following the incident. 

On 25 November 2014, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the 

children neglected and dependent. The trial court also entered a separate disposition 

order, which kept the children in the legal and physical custody of DSS, with physical 

placement in its discretion. Respondent-mother timely appealed from the 

adjudication and disposition orders. The father did not appeal. 

II. Issues

Respondent-mother does not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the 

children are neglected. She argues the trial court erred by adjudicating her children 

dependent. Respondent-mother contends that (1) the evidence presented by DSS was 

only sufficient for an adjudication of neglect, but not dependency; and (2) the trial 

court failed to find she lacked availability of an alternative child care arrangement. 

III. Standard of Review

We review an adjudication of dependency 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, 
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

480, 539 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2000). Unchallenged findings of fact are deemed to be 

supported by the evidence and are binding on appeal. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 

93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991). The conclusion that a juvenile is dependent is 

reviewed de novo. In re V.B., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 768 S.E.2d 867, 868 (2015).

IV. Dependency

A dependent juvenile is “[a] juvenile in need of assistance or placement because 

. . . the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or custodian is unable to provide for the juvenile’s 

care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.”

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9) (2013). “In determining whether a juvenile is dependent, 

the trial court must address both (1) the parent’s ability to provide care or 

supervision, and (2) the availability to the parent of alternative child care 

arrangements.” In re T.B., C.P., & L.P., 203 N.C. App. 497, 500, 692 S.E.2d 182, 184 

(2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

A. Inability to Provide Care or Supervision

Respondent-mother asserts she was able to provide for the children’s care and 

supervision. She argues the trial court’s findings may show evidence of neglectful 

parenting, but fail to support the conclusion that she was unable to care for or 

supervise the children. She contends she did not exhibit a complete inability to 

parent. She asserts evidence that a parent demonstrates some care for the child may 

support an adjudication of neglect, but not dependency. She also asserts evidence 
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

that a parent demonstrates “no ability to care or supervise the child” is required to 

support an adjudication of dependency. 

The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate Respondent-mother

was unable to properly care for the children, at least during a period of time preceding 

DSS’s removal of the children from her care. The trial court’s findings demonstrate 

the children suffer from mental health issues and aggressive behaviors, and are 

difficult to manage. When the social worker visited the home, D.H. engaged in 

dangerous and erratic behaviors. Ja. H. was ill and vomiting blood, which 

Respondent-mother failed to timely address. Because Respondent-mother was 

“incapable of dealing with the children’s behaviors,” the social worker intervened and 

dealt with Ja. H.’s illness and D.H.’s behavior. The trial court properly concluded 

Respondent-mother, at least during this period of time, was unable to provide proper 

care and supervision of the children under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-101(9).

B. Alternative Childcare Arrangement

Respondent-mother next contends the trial court failed to find she lacked the 

availability of an alternative childcare arrangement. The adjudication order 

explicitly incorporated the trial court’s “pre-hearing order,” which was entered after 

a hearing to establish the trial court’s jurisdiction. The order included a finding that 

“[t]here are no other family members who can serve as placement options for the 

minor children.” This finding was supported by Respondent-mother’s testimony at 
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

the jurisdictional hearing that she was unable to identify any family members as

alternative caregivers. This finding is sufficient to establish that Respondent-mother

lacked the availability of appropriate alternative childcare. See In re T.H., ___ N.C. 

App. ___, ___, 753 S.E.2d 207, 215 (2014) (trial court’s finding that “[a]t the time that 

the juvenile petition was filed, there were no appropriate family members 

immediately available to care for the children long-term” was sufficient to satisfy the 

second part of the dependency definition). Since the trial court made sufficient 

findings as to both parts of the definition of dependency, the court properly concluded 

the children were dependent juveniles. This argument is overruled. 

V. Disposition

Respondent-mother argues the trial court erred by placing the children in DSS 

custody without making sufficient findings of fact to support that placement. We 

disagree.

“All dispositional orders of the trial court after abuse, neglect and dependency

hearings must contain findings of fact based upon the credible evidence presented at 

the hearing.” In re Weiler, 158 N.C. App. 473, 477, 581 S.E.2d 134, 137 (2003). “The 

district court has broad discretion to fashion a disposition from the prescribed 

alternatives in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a), based upon the best interests of the child.” 

In re B.W., 190 N.C. App. 328, 336, 665 S.E.2d 462, 467 (2008).
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903 permits the trial court to place “any juvenile who 

needs more adequate care or supervision or who needs placement . . . in the custody 

of the department of social services” as a disposition after a neglect and dependency 

adjudication. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a)(2) (2013). This Court has held a finding 

that the “juvenile . . . needs more adequate care or supervision or needs placement” 

is a “precondition” to considering this disposition as well as the other dispositional 

alternatives outlined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903(a). In re S.H., 217 N.C. App. 140, 

145, 719 S.E.2d 157, 160 (2011).

Here, the trial court found “[a]lthough the boys [sic] behaviors have improved, 

there remain issues with regard to discipline” and “[t]hat the juveniles cannot be 

returned to the legal custody of either parent today, however it is possible that they 

may be returned within the next six months, provided the parents meet the goals and 

objectives of the case plan and present with appropriate housing.” In addition, the 

court incorporated as findings the reports submitted by DSS and the guardian ad 

litem, including the DSS statement that “[r]eturn to the parents at this time would 

be inconsistent with the juvenile[s’] health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent 

home.” 

These findings, which are unchallenged and binding on appeal, show the trial 

court determined the children needed placement outside the home, such that the 

court could properly consider the dispositional alternatives in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
IN RE: D.H., J.H., J.H.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

903(a). We sustain the trial court’s decision to maintain placement of the children 

with DSS at that time, pending further review and orders.

VI. Conclusion

The trial court made sufficient findings to establish Respondent-mother was 

unable to provide for the children’s care and supervision and lacked an alternative 

childcare arrangement. The court properly concluded the children were dependent. 

The trial court’s adjudication and disposition orders are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Judges STROUD and DILLON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).