Law Juvenile Cases Decided by N.C. Court of Appeals March 4, 2008 Termination of Parental Rights Failure to issue a summons to the juvenile deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.
In re A.F.H-G. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071346-1.htm Facts: In an action to terminate parents rights, the petitioners named both parents but not the juvenile in the summons. Held: Vacated. The court of appeals, stating that it was bound by its prior holdings, vacated the trial courts order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no summons was issued to the child. Prior holdings cited by the court include In re K.A.D., __ N.C. App. __, __, 653 S.E.2d 427, 428-29 (2007) (citing In re C.T. & R.S., __ N.C. App. __, __, 643 S.E.2d 23, 25 (2007)) . Concurrence: Judge Stephens filed a separate concurring opinion to express the view that the court in In re K.A.D. misinterpreted the courts holding in In re C.T. (In the former, the name of a sibling but not the name of the other child named in the petition appeared on the summons that was served on the parents. In the latter, the child was named on the summons but was not listed as a respondent and no summons was issued to the child.) In re B.L.H. and Z.L.H. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071313-1.htm In re J.T. (I), J.T. (II), A.J. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071372-1.htm Facts: In appeals from orders terminating parental rights, the records were silent with respect to issuance or service of summonses to the juveniles. Held: Vacated. The court of appeals vacated the trial courts orders for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because summonses were not issued to the children. Concurrence: In both cases Judge Stephens concurred in the result, for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in In re A.F.H.-G. (see above).
The following case was decided February 19, 2008: Permanency Planning Hearing; Guardianship
At a permanency planning hearing, courts finding that childs return home within six months was improbable was sufficient; court was not required to find that was it impossible. The requirement that a permanency planning hearing be held within a year of the childs placement does not mean that a parent is guaranteed a year or other specific time period to comply with a case plan and court orders.
In re T.R.M http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071170-1.htm Facts: In October 2006, the child was adjudicated dependent based on respondents inability to provide a stable home or obtain employment as well as her mental health problems and need for a psychological evaluation. The court placed the child in DSS custody; ordered respondent to comply with a service agreement and case plan and submit to random drug screenings; and gave respondent supervised visitation. The child was placed in the home of her maternal grandparents. At review hearings in January and April, 2007, the court found that respondent had complied with only some parts of the case plan and continued the plan of reunification. After a permanency planning hearing the court entered an order in July, 2007, making numerous findings, including that respondent was unwilling to participate in counseling or obtain a second opinion about whether she needed counseling, that she refused to accept employment that was offered to her, that she repeatedly...