adjudication hearing in North Carolina

2009Cf. In re Hardesty, 150 N.C.

2007See Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. at 384 , 563 S.E.2d at 82 ("While there is no requirement that the factual allegations be exhaustive or extensive, they must put a party on notice as to what acts, omissions or conditions are at issue.").

2009App. 295, 302 , 631 S.E.2d 61, 66 (2006) ("Even assuming arguendo that the trial court committed error by its failure to appoint a GAL for respondent mother for the initial adjudication hearing, this Court has recently held that such an error does not `bear[] a legal relationship with the validity of the later order on termination.'" (quoting O.C. & O.B., 171 N.C.

2006Even assuming arguendo that the trial court committed error by its failure to appoint a GAL for respondent mother for the initial adjudication hearing, this Court has recently held that such an error does not "bear[] a legal relationship with the validity of the later order on termination." O.C., 171 N.C.App. at 462 , 615 S.E.2d at 394-95 (overruling parent's assignment of error, in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, pertaining to the trial court's failure to appoint the parent a GAL at the initial adjudication hearing).

2021See In re J.L.T., 254 N.C. App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2021See In re J.L.T., 254 N.C. App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2021See In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2006) (citing Powers v. Powers, 130 N.C. App. 37, 46 , 502 S.E.2d 398, 403-04 (1998)).

2021See In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 14 (2006) (citing Powers v. Powers, 130 N.C. App. 37, 46 , 502 S.E.2d 398, 403-04 (1998)).

2021See In re Whisnant, 71 N.C. App. at 441 , 322 S.E.2d at 435 . ¶ 38 Similarly, the majority appears to hold that the text messages could not be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial risk of harm toward Riley based in part IN RE R.B. 2021-NCCOA-654 CARPENTER, J., concurring in part and concurring in result only in part. on Respondent-Mother’s own testimony at the adjudication hearing in which she testified she was only “venting” in her “hyperbolic” text messages to Ms. D.

2021See In re Whisnant, 71 N.C. App. at 441 , 322 S.E.2d at 435 . ¶ 38 Similarly, the majority appears to hold that the text messages could not be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial risk of harm toward Riley based in part IN RE R.B. 2021-NCCOA-654 CARPENTER, J., concurring in part and concurring in result only in part. on Respondent-Mother’s own testimony at the adjudication hearing in which she testified she was only “venting” in her “hyperbolic” text messages to Ms. D.

2021See In re J.L.T., 254 N.C. App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2021See In re J.L.T., 254 N.C. App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2020Id. at 36-37, 799 S.E.2d at 451-52.

2020Id. at 36-37, 799 S.E.2d at 451-52.

2020Though “DSS did not ‘check the box’ alleging dependency” on the petition, “[t]he allegations attached to the petition [] were sufficient to put respondent-mother on notice that dependency would be at issue during the adjudication hearing” because they “encompass[ed] the language reflected in the statutory definition of dependency[.]” Id. at 427-28 , 801 S.E.2d at 163-64 (petition alleged specifically “that respondent- mother failed to provide for [the child]’s care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” (internal marks omitted)).

2020Though “DSS did not ‘check the box’ alleging dependency” on the petition, “[t]he allegations attached to the petition [] were sufficient to put respondent-mother on notice that dependency would be at issue during the adjudication hearing” because they “encompass[ed] the language reflected in the statutory definition of dependency[.]” Id. at 427-28 , 801 S.E.2d at 163-64 (petition alleged specifically “that respondent- mother failed to provide for [the child]’s care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” (internal marks omitted)).

2020See In re Isenhour, 101 N.C. App. 550, 553 , 400 S.E.2d 71, 73 (1991) (“Respondent also contends that the court erred in basing these findings on evidence that was not substantive or was hearsay.

2020See In re Isenhour, 101 N.C. App. 550, 553 , 400 S.E.2d 71, 73 (1991) (“Respondent also contends that the court erred in basing these findings on evidence that was not substantive or was hearsay.

2020“Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 , 831 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2019) (citation omitted).

2020“Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 , 831 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2019) (citation omitted).

2008See Peirce, 53 N.C.App. at 380 , 281 S.E.2d at 203 (holding "the legislative intent was that G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B, [now Article 11 of Chapter 7B] exclusively control the procedure to be followed in the termination of parental rights.").

2008See Peirce, 53 N.C.App. at 380 , 281 S.E.2d at 203 (holding "the legislative intent was that G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B, [now Article 11 of Chapter 7B] exclusively control the procedure to be followed in the termination of parental rights.").

2025Where a party “asks us to reconsider the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding the various testifying witnesses from the adjudication hearing below, it is not the role of this Court to question such credibility determinations on appeal.” In re K.E.P., _ N.C. App. _, _, 915 S.E.2d 470 , 477 (2025) (citing In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 11 , 822 S.E.2d at 700 ).

2025Where a party “asks us to reconsider the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding the various testifying witnesses from the adjudication hearing below, it is not the role of this Court to question such credibility determinations on appeal.” In re K.E.P., _ N.C. App. _, _, 915 S.E.2d 470 , 477 (2025) (citing In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 11 , 822 S.E.2d at 700 ).

2023We held in J.B. that “failure to follow the statutory mandate when conducting an adjudication hearing constitutes reversible error unless proven to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re J.B., 261 N.C. App. at 373-374 (citing In re J.R.V., 212 N.C. App. at 209 ).

2019See In re J.B., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 820 S.E.2d 369, 371 (2018) (holding that “failure to follow the statutory mandate when conducting an adjudication hearing constitutes reversible error unless proven to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

2018Nevertheless, this Court in D.C. deemed the allegations in the petition's attachment, which included the respondent's neglect of D.C., C.C.'s lack of regular prenatal care, and the respondent's lack of basic items necessary for newborn C.C.'s care, as "insufficient to put respondent on notice that both dependency and neglect of C.C. would be at *574 issue during the adjudication hearing." D.C. , 183 N.C.

2008In that case, "the box for `neglect'" on the petition was not checked, and the factual allegations attached to the petition did not "put respondent on notice that both dependency and neglect [] would be at issue during the adjudication hearing." Id. at ___, 644 S.E.2d at 643 (emphasis in original).

2014Moreover, “the purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C.

2014Stat. § 7B-101(1) (defining “abused juvenile” as, inter alia, one whose parent or custodian “creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of serious physical injury . . .”), (15) (defining “neglected juvenile” as one “who does not receive proper care, supervision or discipline . . .”). “[T]he purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C.

2026The Court also noted that the mother had missed many medical appointments so she “failed to provide necessary medical care.” Id. at 371, 905 S.E.2d at 783.

2026The mother failed to complete a substance abuse assessment and timely obtain a mental health assessment before the adjudication hearing, which demonstrated “a substantial risk of future abuse or neglect of [the juvenile] based on the historical facts of the case.” Id. at 369-72, 905 S.E.2d at 781-83.

2026A valid consent adjudication order requires “no additional evidence of neglect need[] be introduced at the adjudication hearing and no further substantive findings of fact by the trial court establishing neglect [are] necessary to support its adjudication.” In re R.L.G., 260 N.C. App. 70, 73 , 816 S.E.2d 914, 917 (2018).

2026A valid consent adjudication order requires “no additional evidence of neglect need[] be introduced at the adjudication hearing and no further substantive findings of fact by the trial court establishing neglect [are] necessary to support its adjudication.” In re R.L.G., 260 N.C. App. 70, 73 , 816 S.E.2d 914, 917 (2018).

2026A. Standard of Review “When a juvenile argues to this Court that the trial court failed to follow a statutory mandate, the error is preserved and is a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re E.M., 263 N.C. App. 476, 479 , 823 S.E. 2d 674, 676 (2019) (italics omitted).

2026A. Standard of Review “When a juvenile argues to this Court that the trial court failed to follow a statutory mandate, the error is preserved and is a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re E.M., 263 N.C. App. 476, 479 , 823 S.E. 2d 674, 676 (2019) (italics omitted).

2026We review whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. -8- Id. at 520 , 886 S.E.2d at 171 (cleaned up). “[T]he purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 15 (2006) (quoting N.C. Gen.

2026We review whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. -8- Id. at 520 , 886 S.E.2d at 171 (cleaned up). “[T]he purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C. App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 15 (2006) (quoting N.C. Gen.