Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus [Combined Opinion

                  by Judge Fred Gore](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810321/in-re-jb-iv-ib-b/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: J.B., IV & I.B.-B.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-667

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

abuse; neglect; parental drug use; positive drug screens; consent to medical testing; clear and convincing evidence.

Combined Opinion

                        by Judge Fred Gore

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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. COA25-667

Filed 18 March 2026

Iredell County, Nos. 24JA000228-480, 24JA000229-480

IN RE:

J.B., IV and I.B.-B,

Minor Juveniles.

Appeal by respondent-mother from orders entered 2 April 2025 by Judge

Carole A. Hicks in Iredell County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10

February 2026.

Lauren Vaughan for petitioner-appellee Iredell County Department of Social
Services.

Ellis & Winters LLP, by Tyler C. Jameson, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Robinson & Lawing, LLP, by Christopher M. Watford, for respondent-
appellant-mother.

GORE, Judge.

Respondent-mother appeals from orders adjudicating her minor children, Joel

and Ivy,1 as abused and neglected juveniles. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

1 Pseudonyms.
IN RE: J.B., IV & I.B.-B.

Opinion of the Court

N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a)(3), as the appeal is from a final adjudication and disposition

order entered by the Iredell County District Court. We affirm.

I.

Joel, age three, and Ivy, age eight, resided with their parents and other family

members. Following a CPS report, DSS discovered both parents had repeatedly

tested positive for fentanyl, methadone, and other substances. Hair follicle screens

revealed Joel tested positive for fentanyl, methadone, and marijuana; Ivy tested

positive for marijuana. The substances in the children’s systems matched those for

which the parents tested positive. When DSS requested follow-up drug screens, both

parents failed to appear.

II.

A trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Watts-

Robinson v. Shelton, 251 N.C. App. 507, 513 (2016). In reviewing an adjudication

order, we determine whether the findings are supported by clear and convincing

evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. In re S.R.J.T., 276

N.C. App. 327, 329 (2021). The conclusion that a juvenile is abused or neglected is

reviewed de novo. In re V.B., 239 N.C. App. 340, 341 (2015).

III.

A.

Respondent-mother argues the children’s drug test results should have been

excluded under N.C.G.S. § 90-21.10B, which requires written or documented parental

-2-
IN RE: J.B., IV & I.B.-B.

Opinion of the Court

consent before a health care practitioner may provide treatment to a minor. This

statutory argument was not raised below; counsel acknowledged “North Carolina it

seems does not have a specific statute on drug screening minors.” The issue is not

preserved. N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(1). The argument actually presented—that parental

consent was required and not obtained—was rejected by the trial court, which found

that consent was given at the CFT meeting. This finding is unchallenged on appeal

and supported by competent evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion to exclude.

B.

An abused juvenile includes one whose parent “creates or allows to be created

a substantial risk of serious physical injury.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(1)(b) (2024). Three-

year-old Joel tested positive for fentanyl, methadone, and marijuana; eight-year-old

Ivy tested positive for marijuana. The same substances were found in the parents’

drug screens. When DSS requested follow-up drug screens, both parents failed to

appear. This evidence supports a reasonable inference that the parents were

responsible for the children’s exposure. See In re W.C.T., 280 N.C. App. 17, 28 (2021).

The exposure of young children to controlled substances constitutes clear evidence of

a substantial risk of serious physical injury—particularly where, as here, a three-

year-old tested positive for fentanyl. The trial court’s abuse adjudication is supported

by clear and convincing evidence.

C.

-3-
IN RE: J.B., IV & I.B.-B.

Opinion of the Court

A neglected juvenile includes one living in an “environment that is injurious to

the juvenile’s welfare.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(15)(e) (2024). Unlike In re V.M., 273 N.C.

App. 294 (2020), where a mother unknowingly used a contaminated bottle, here both

parents engaged in prolonged drug use, and their children tested positive for the same

substances. A positive drug screen itself constitutes evidence of harm. In re K.H.,

281 N.C. App. 259, 269 (2022). The trial court’s neglect adjudication is supported by

clear and convincing evidence.

D.

Respondent-mother’s sole argument for reversing the disposition order is that

the adjudication should be reversed. She identifies no independent error in the

disposition. Because we affirm the adjudication, and respondent-mother raises no

other challenge, we affirm the disposition order.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s adjudication of Joel and Ivy as

abused and neglected juveniles is supported by clear and convincing evidence. We

affirm the adjudication and disposition orders.

AFFIRMED.

Judges ARROWOOD and CARPENTER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-4-