In re M.A.C. & S.X.C., ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 17, 2023)
Held:
Affirmed
There is a dissent
by Hampson, J.
- Facts: Mother appeals order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children on the ground that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under G.S. 7B-1101. Mother’s two children resided with their paternal Grandparents and their Father pursuant to a consent order from August 2017 until their father’s death in March 2019. Mother moved out of state following entry of the consent order and ceased contact with the children. Following their Father’s death, the children continued to live exclusively with their Grandparents in Columbus County. The Grandparents filed verified petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the two children in June 2021, later amended in August 2021. The petitions alleged that the two children resided with the Grandparents in Columbus County and that each child was “present in” Harnett County (a different judicial district than Columbus County) at the time of the filing of the petitions. Mother filed unverified answers motioning to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. At the TPR hearing, Mother’s motions were denied and the court concluded that grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights had been established and that termination was in the juvenile’s best interests.
- Whether a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. “Absent subject-matter jurisdiction, a trial court cannot enter a legally valid order infringing upon a parent’s constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child.” Sl. Op. at 4 (citation omitted). A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged “at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.” Sl. Op. at 4 (citation omitted).
- “A verified pleading containing factual allegations that satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is sufficient to raise ‘the prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction.’ ” Sl. Op. at 7. The party challenging the court’s jurisdiction has the burden to rebut the “prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction which arises from the fact that a court of general jurisdiction has acted in the matter.” Sl. Op. at 4 (citation omitted).
- G.S. 7B-1101 grants a trial court exclusive original jurisdiction over any petition or motion relating to termination of parental rights to any juvenile who resides in or is found in the district at the time of filing of the petition or motion. Binding precedent of the court of appeals has interpreted “found in” to mean “physically present in[.]” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted).
- Grandparent-petitioners invoked the prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction upon filing verified TPR petitions containing factual allegations that included the children were present in Harnett County at the time the petitions were filed. The allegation of the children’s presence is sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that the children be “found in” the judicial district where the action was filed, Harnett County.
- Mother did not carry her burden to rebut the prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction. The only competent evidence in the record regarding the physical presence of the two children at the time of the filing of the petition is the verified TPR petitions. “The allegations of a verified juvenile petition that support the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and which remain uncontested by competent evidence throughout the proceedings, may sufficiently determine the threshold issue of the court’s jurisdiction.” Sl. Op. at 12. Though Mother’s filed answers denying that the two children were present in Harnett County at the time of the filing of the petition, Mother’s answers were unverified and therefore not competent evidence and not considered by the court. It is immaterial that there is no statutory requirement that an answer be verified. Mother also failed to dispute the allegation at the TPR hearing.
- The court confines this holding “to the sole issue of the sufficiency of competent record evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction.” Sl. Op. at 12.
- Dissent: The presumption of rightful jurisdiction only applies when it is not inconsistent with the record. In this case, Mother’s answer denied the jurisdictional allegations in the petitions that the children were present in Harnett County at the time of the filing of the petitions. Beyond the “conclusory allegations in the petitions,” the Grandparent-petitioners did not present any evidence to support the court’s finding that the children were found in Harnett County at the time of the filing of the petitions. The record contains no evidence to support the finding that the children were present in Harnett County when the petition was filed such that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
G.S. 7B Jurisdiction