In a recent ruling, the N.C. Supreme Court strengthened the right of parents to challenge court determinations that they neglected their children. In reaching its determination, the high court overruled an earlier decision by the N.C. Court of Appeals.

The father in this case has two daughters, C.A.K. and A.K. A few weeks after C.A.K. was born in January 2002, her parents brought her to the emergency room. Her doctors thought the injuries were caused by “major force.” The Buncombe County Department of Social Services was contacted. C.A.K. was eventually adjudicated as “neglected” and, in February 2003, placed in the custody of her paternal grandparents.

A.K. was born in May 2003. When the DSS became aware of her birth, it filed a petition to have her also declared as neglected based upon what had happened to her older sister. District Judge Gary Cash granted the DSS’s petition in February 2004. Though A.K.’s parents would have physical custody of A.K., Cash awarded legal custody of the girl to DSS.

A.K.’s father appealed the district court’s rulings. Before the case could be heard by the N.C. Court of Appeals, however, Cash had restored full custody of A.K. to her parents. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot, including A.K.’s father’s challenge to the determination that she had been neglected. He appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.

“The principal function of the judicial branch of government is to resolve cases or controversies between adverse parties,” Justice Mark Martin said for the Supreme Court in the ruling on May 5.

“When a legal controversy between opposing parties ceases to exist, the case is generally rendered moot and is no longer justifiable. Ordinarily, an appellate court will decide a case only if the controversy which gave rise to the action continues at the time of appeal.”

An exception exists, however, when a case involves collateral legal consequences. For example, criminal appeals proceed even if a defendant has served his prison sentence before an appeal is heard, for the mere fact of a conviction can have serious legal consequences. Likewise, involuntary commitment orders might be appealed even if someone is released from a mental hospital before the appeal is heard; the fact someone was previously involuntarily committed before can be used to help justify future involuntary commitments.

The Supreme Court found an appeal of an adjudication of neglect should be heard for similar reasons.

“The instant case vividly illustrates the significance of a prior adjudication of neglect in finding another child in the same home to be a neglected juvenile. Specifically, the allegation (and adjudication) of neglect regarding A.K. was based entirely on the trial court’s previous adjudication of neglect involving respondent’s other child, C.A.K.”

The high court specifically rejected the argument that a neglect adjudication with regard to A.K. would have no legal effect since such a determination already existed with A.K.’s sibling, C.A.K.

“We reject the suggestion that a trial court would necessarily view a prior neglect adjudication as merely cumulative in light of other evidence of parental neglect,” Martin wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court.

”It is permissible, indeed logical, for a trial court in a termination of parental rights hearing to weigh a prior adjudication of neglect more heavily than mere evidence of neglect.

“The adjudication at issue in respondent’s appeal would be evidence of neglect in any future proceeding concerning termination of respondent’s parental rights in relation to A.K. Again, the adjudication would work to respondent’s legal detriment. These potential ‘collateral legal consequences’ for respondent demonstrate that his challenge to A.K.’s adjudication ‘is not moot and… has continued legal significance.’”

The Supreme Court also noted that an adjudication of neglect is likely to carry a negative significant social stigma, which “give a parent (and indeed the affected child) a continuing stake in determining the validity of the adjudication, even after the parent has regained custody of the child.”

“In summary, we hold that because a juvenile neglect adjudication can reasonably result in collateral legal consequences, a parent’s appeal from such an adjudication is not rendered moot simply because the minor child is returned to his or her parent’s custody during the pendency of the appeal.”

The case is In The Matter Of A.K. (139PA05).
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2006/139-05-1.htm

Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.