Domestic Relations – Abused and Neglected – Unexplained Injuries

The trial court’s unchallenged findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

We affirmed the trial court’s orders concluding that one infant child was abused and neglected and that her sibling was neglected.

The younger child, an infant, was brought to the hospital with numerous fractures at various stages of healing, including rib, femur, tibia, and clavicle fractures. Medical experts testified that most of the injuries were highly specific to non-accidental trauma and inconsistent with ordinary handling or accidental causes. Although the parents offered alternative medical explanations, including possible genetic conditions, the trial court found that evidence not credible and instead credited the testimony of a child abuse pediatrician.

On appeal, the parents challenged numerous findings of fact, arguing that the evidence did not establish that the injuries were inflicted by them or that the statutory definitions of abuse and neglect were satisfied. We rejected these arguments, noting that unchallenged findings are binding on appeal and that even where some findings are disputed, the remaining supported findings may sustain the judgment. We highlighted key findings showing that the infant suffered multiple unexplained, non-accidental injuries while in the exclusive care of her parents and that no medical condition or external cause adequately explained the injuries. Additionally, after the child was removed from the parents’ care and placed with relatives, no further injuries occurred, supporting the inference that the harm arose in the parents’ home environment.

Relying on established precedent, that abuse adjudications may be upheld where a child sustains unexplained injuries highly indicative of non-accidental trauma while in the care of caregivers, even if direct evidence of the precise mechanism is lacking. The combination of medical evidence, the absence of alternative explanations, and the timing of injuries provided a sufficient evidentiary “bridge” connecting the harm to the parents’ care.

We further affirmed the neglect adjudication for the sibling, reasoning that the same circumstances supporting the abuse finding also demonstrated an injurious home environment. Citing recent Supreme Court authority, when a child suffers severe abuse and the parents cannot provide a plausible explanation or assurances against recurrence, a trial court may find a substantial risk of similar harm to other children in the home. Here, the findings established that the sibling lived in the same environment where the abuse occurred and faced a corresponding risk.

Accordingly, we held that the trial court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that those findings adequately supported its legal conclusions. The adjudications of abuse and neglect were therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

In the Matter of J.R.D.L.G & S.L.K.L.G. (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-063-26, 39 pp.) (Chris Dillon, J.) Appealed from Cabarrus County District Court (Nathaniel M. Knust, J.) Robinson & Lawing, LLP, by Christopher M. Watford, for the respondent-appellant-father. Reece & Reece, by Mary McCullers Reece, for the respondent-appellant-mother. Administrative Office of the Courts, by NC GAL Appellate Counsel Matthew D. Wunsche, for guardian ad litem. Hartsell & Williams, P.A., by Kimberly B. Kisner, for the petitioner-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals