In re M.B., 288 N.C. App. 351 (2023)
Held:
Vacated and Remanded
- Facts: The juvenile was born in 2013 and lived with his mother in the Washington, D.C. area since his birth. In 2018, the Maryland court concluded he was a child in need of assistance and placed him in the custody of Maryland DSS. In 2020, the Maryland court reunified the juvenile with his mother and terminated the child in need of assistance action but stated the order remains in effect until the child is 18 unless modified by a court of competent jurisdiction. In October 2020, mother was arrested for DWI, drug possession, and child abuse in North Carolina. DSS filed a petition, and the juvenile was placed in the nonsecure custody of DSS. From October 15 – December 1, 2020, the juvenile was in foster care in NC; mother was staying at a hotel in NC. On December 1st, the juvenile was placed with relatives in NC and mother moved back to Washington, D.C. The juvenile was adjudicated, and dispositional hearings were held. The court found that mother’s permanent address is in Washington, D.C. and ultimately placed the juvenile with a relative in Maryland where the juvenile would be closer to his permanent home. At a permanency planning hearing, the court entered two orders: the first giving guardianship to the relative and the second giving legal custody to the relative. Mother appeals raising subject matter under the UCCJEA.
- The standard of review of whether the NC court has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is de novo. If the court lacks jurisdiction, “then the whole proceeding is null and void, i.e., as if it had never happened.” Sl.Op. at 12 (citation omitted).
- Maryland was the home state based on the juvenile and mother residing in Maryland for at least six months before DSS in NC filed its petition. Further, the NC court orders make numerous references to Maryland as the juvenile’s home. As the home state, Maryland had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination. Maryland’s custody order was an initial custody determination. G.S. 50A-201(a)(1).
- Maryland, as the home state, retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction, as the Maryland order stated it remains in effect until the child turns 18; the mother and child have a significant relationship with Maryland and substantial evidence is there; the mother resides in Maryland; and the child lived all but 9 months of his life in Maryland. G.S. 50A-202.
- NC exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction when the child was found here and was subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. G.S. 50A-204(a). When exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction, the court must determine whether a previous child custody determination has been made. If there was not a previous child custody determination, “temporary emergency jurisdiction ‘becomes a final determination … and this State becomes the home state of the child.’ ” Sl.Op. at 15-16; G.S. 50A-204(b). If there was a previous child custody determination, the court must specify the duration of the jurisdiction in its order and communicate with the court of the home state. G.S. 50A-204(c)-(d). Because of the previous Maryland custody order, the temporary emergency jurisdiction did not “morph” into home state jurisdiction. The NC court had an affirmative duty to communicate with the Maryland court to resolve the emergency or determine the length of the temporary order.
Category:
UCCJEAStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction