Volume 83 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

Schools 11.2 — injury in school baseball game — exclusion from liability coverage — governmental immunity Under N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>115C-42</cross_reference> (1983), a local board of education, by purchasing general liability insurance, does not waive all governmental immunity from liability in tort, including liability for injuries expressly excluded from the insurance coverage. Therefore, the doctrine of governmental immunity protected a city board of education from liability for injuries to a player in a school-sponsored baseball game allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of the ball field where the general liability insurance policy purchased by the board contained an exclusion for injury arising out of participation in athletic contests.

1. Parent and Child 2.3 — child custody — neglect — failure to comply with prior court directives There was no merit to respondent's contention that the trial court erred by removing custody of her children from her because she failed to comply with prior court directives where respondent had previously stipulated that her children were neglected; the court found that custody should remain in respondent but specified certain conditions applicable to her, including that she cooperate with community level services; and the court acted with full statutory authority when it conducted a hearing upon a social worker's motion and determined that respondent's subsequent refusal to cooperate with the community level services and orders applicable to her constituted a change of circumstances affecting the best interests of the children sufficient to require modification of the prior custody order. 2. Parent and Child 2.3 — child custody — neglect — burden of proof not shifted to parent There was no merit to respondent's contention in a child custody hearing that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to her in its order removing custody from respondent where the order provided that it would be reviewed in 90 days; at that time respondent should show evidence of a stable environment and that she should<page_number>Page 243</page_number> work with various community agencies and personnel to stabilize her situation so that the children could be returned to her; these portions of the order had no bearing on burden of proof but simply stated with particularity what it was necessary for respondent to do prior to the review in order to regain custody of her children; and the order was consistent with prior orders and illustrated the court's continued interest in strengthening the home situation and maintaining the family structure. 3. Parent and Child 2.3 — child custody — neglect — findings of fact Respondent in a child custody proceeding could not complain about the trial court's findings of fact which related to events prior to the penultimate review of her case, since the findings objected to related to evidentiary rather than ultimate facts; there were other evidentiary facts sufficient to support the ultimate facts found by the court; and evidence of prior neglect which led to an adjudication of neglect shows circumstances as they were and is therefore relevant as to whether a change of circumstances has occurred since that order. 4. Parent and Child 2.3 — child custody — neglect — findings of fact Evidence was sufficient to support various findings of the trial court with regard to respondent's neglect of her children, and the findings were sufficient to support its conclusion that custody of the children should be put with the Department of Social Services for placement; furthermore, a conflict in the order with regard to placing custody of the children in the mother or in the Department of Social Services could be resolved by considering the evidence, findings, and the court's oral order at trial.