In re S.C.L.R., 2021-NCSC-101

Held: 
Affirmed in Part
Reversed in Part
There is a dissent
Earls, J., joined by Newby, J. - concur in part, dissent in part
  • Facts: Petitioners were custodians pursuant to a 2017 Chapter 50 custody order. The juvenile had been in their care since the juvenile’s discharge from the hospital after birth. The TPR was granted and both parents appealed. They argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the TPR petition did not comply with G.S. 7B-1104(2) in that it failed to allege the petitioners had standing under G.S. 7B-1103.
  • The allegations were sufficient to comply with G.S. 7B-1104(2) and there is no dispute that the petitioners had standing under G.S. 7B-1103(a)(5) – a person the juvenile has continuously resided with for 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the TPR petition. The petition included the petitioners’ names and address and alleged the petitioners had custody of the juvenile through a 2017 court order and that the child resides with the petitioners. The civil custody order finds the juvenile was residing with the petitioners since birth. The TPR was initiated more than 2 years after the civil custody order was entered.
    • Author’s Note: Effective October 1, 2021, that statute was amended to reduce the time period to 18 months (from 24 months).
Category:
Termination of Parental Rights
Stage:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Topic:
G.S. 7B Jurisdiction
Tags:
Click on a term below for additional case summaries tagged with the same term.