Date: 09-03-2024

Case Style:

In the Matter of: A.D.H.

Case Number: 22-JA-52

Judge: W. David McFadyen

Court: District Court, Carteret County, North Carolina

Plaintiff's Attorney: Carteret County Department of Human Services Legal Department

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Beaufort Family Law Lawyer Directory

Description:

Beaufort, North Carolina family law child custody Lawyer represented the Defendants.

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
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 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.

* * *


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

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)...

Outcome: Vacated and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: