In Re: J.S
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. NO. COA08-1030 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 January 2009 IN THE MATTER OF: J.S. Lee County No. 06 J 71 Appeal by respondents from order entered 23 June 2008, nunc Court of Appeals pro tunc 8 April 2008, by Judge George R. Murphy in Lee County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 December 2008. Beverly D. Basden for petitioner-appellee Department of Social Services. Lee County Slip Opinion Peter Wood for respondent appellant father. Lisa Skinner Lefler for respondent appellant mother. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Beth Tyner Jones, for guardian ad litem. ELMORE, Judge. On 26 September 2006, the Lee County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that J.S. was a neglected and dependent juvenile. On 14 November 2006, the district court adjudicated J.S. a neglected and dependent juvenile based on a stipulation between the parties. On 31 October 2007, DSS filed a petition to terminate respondents parental rights. On 23 June 2008, nunc pro tunc 8 April 2008, the trial court terminated respondents parental rights. Respondents appeal. -2The threshold issue for this Court to consider on appeal is whether the trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction over this juvenile action. We hold that it did not. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-200(a) confers on the district court exclusive, original jurisdiction over any case involving a juvenile who is alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-200(a) (2007). In juvenile proceedings, verified pleadings are necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C. App. 285, 288, 426 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1993). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B- 403 specifically provides that the petition shall be drawn by the director, verified before an official authorized to administer oaths, and filed by the clerk, recording the date of filing. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-403(a) (2007) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court addressed the effect of verification of a juvenile petition in In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 636 S.E.2d 787 (2006). petition There, the Court stated that verification of a juvenile is no mere ministerial or procedural act and verification of the petition in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action as required by N.C.G.S. § 7B-403 is a vital link in the chain of proceedings carefully designed to protect children at risk on one hand while avoiding undue interference with family rights on the other. Id. at 591, 636 S.E.2d at 790 91. The Court noted that a juvenile abuse, neglect, or dependency action under Chapter 7B may be based on an anonymous report, and . . . frequently results in DSS immediate interference with a respondent s -3constitutionally-protected right to parent his or her children. Id. at 591 92, 636 S.E.2d at 791 (citations omitted). [G]iven the magnitude of the interests at stake in juvenile cases and the potentially devastating consequences of any errors, the General Assembly s requirement of a verified petition is a reasonable method of assuring that our courts exercise their power only when an identifiable government actor vouches for the validity of the allegations in such a freighted action. Id. at 592, 636 S.E.2d at 791. Accordingly, in interpreting the integrated nature of the statutes constituting the Juvenile Code, our Supreme Court held that a trial court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an allegedly neglected juvenile in a custody review hearing when the juvenile petition initiating the case was not verified as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-403(a); in such a case, the trial court s review order is void ab initio. Id. at 593 94, 636 S.E.2d at 791 92. In the instant case, DSS filed a petition alleging neglect and dependency with respect to J.S. on 26 September 2006. The petition was not verified before an official authorized to administer oaths. Thus, the trial court never obtained jurisdiction in this action, and the order awarding DSS custody of J.S. was void ab initio. Because DSS did not have legal custody of the juvenile, DSS did not have standing to file the termination petition, and the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction terminating respondents parental rights. to enter order Accordingly, the order terminating respondents parental rights is vacated. Vacated. the -4Judges MCGEE and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
