In re J.M.
| Citation | 857 S.E.2d 119,377 N.C. 298 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 363PA17-2,363PA17-2 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: J.M. & J.M. |
The Law Office of Derrick J. Hensley, PLLC, Chapel Hill, by Derrick J. Hensley, Esq., for petitioner-appellee Durham County Department of Social Services.
Matthew D. Wunsche, Durham, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for respondent-appellant father.
¶ 1 Respondent-father appeals from orders entered by the trial court terminating his parental rights to his daughter J.M. (Jazmin)1 and to his son J.M. (James). After careful review, we vacate the order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin and affirm the order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to James.
¶ 2 On 11 September 2015, Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition alleging that twenty-three-month-old Jazmin and two-month-old James were abused, neglected, and dependent juveniles. On the same day, DSS obtained nonsecure custody of the children, and the trial court approved DSS's placement of the children with their maternal grandparents, who lived in New York but regularly visited Durham.
¶ 3 The juvenile petition alleged that the mother had previously claimed, but later denied, that respondent-father hit Jazmin, and that the family had received in-home services since March 2015 due to a finding of improper care based on the mother's allegations. Months later, marks were observed on James's neck when the mother took him to a well-baby checkup on 8 September 2015.
James was sent to UNC hospitals for further testing, which revealed that James had healing fractures to his ribs
, tibia, and fibula; bruising to his ear and tongue; subconjunctival hemorrhages ; and excoriation under his chin. The mother told the following to DSS: (1) she witnessed respondent-father "flicking" James in the chin and punching James in the stomach; (2) she witnessed respondent-father excessively discipline Jazmin by hitting her with a back scratcher and hitting her in the face; (3) there had been domestic violence between respondent-father and herself in the presence of the children; (4) respondent-father smoked marijuana in the presence of the children; and (5) she had not been forthcoming during the prior Child Protective Services investigation in February 2015. Additionally, the petition alleged James "had a history of poor weight gain due to ... not being fed on a regular schedule[,]" and both the mother and respondent-father had mental health diagnoses.
¶ 4 In October 2015, respondent-father was arrested for child abuse related to James. In April 2017, respondent-father was convicted of felony child abuse inflicting serious injury upon James and sentenced to 92 to 123 months’ imprisonment. Respondent-father's conviction was upheld on appeal. State v. Martin , 268 N.C.App. 153, 833 S.E.2d 263, 2019 WL 5219970 (2019) (unpublished), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied , 374 N.C. 750, 842 S.E.2d 595 (2020).
¶ 5 Prior to the criminal proceedings, the juvenile petition was heard on 12 July 2016. In an adjudication, disposition, and permanency planning order entered on 21 November 2016, the trial court adjudicated Jazmin to be a "seriously neglected" juvenile "due to inappropriate discipline by the father and inaction by the mother[,]" and it adjudicated James to be an abused juvenile in that respondent-father "inflicts on the child[ ] ... serious physical injury by other than accidental means" and the mother "allows to be inflicted on the child[ ] ... a serious physical injury by other than accidental means." The trial court continued custody of Jazmin and James in DSS with their placement with their maternal grandparents, ceased reunification efforts with the parents, suspended the parents’ visitation with the children, and set the primary permanent plan for the children as guardianship with a secondary plan for adoption.
¶ 6 The children's mother relinquished her parental rights on 1 December 2016. Respondent-father appealed the adjudication, disposition, and permanency planning order on 21 December 2016.
¶ 7 In an opinion issued on 19 September 2017, the Court of Appeals: (1) affirmed the adjudication of James as an abused juvenile, given that "[t]he binding findings of fact establish[ed] that [James] sustained multiple non-accidental injuries and [r]espondent-father was responsible for the injuries[,]" In re J.M. , 255 N.C. App. 483, 495, 804 S.E.2d 830 (2017) ; (2) reversed and remanded the adjudication of Jazmin as a seriously neglected juvenile, holding that the trial court acted under a misapprehension of the law as "[t]he term ‘serious neglect’ pertains only to placement of an individual on the responsible individuals’ list and is not included as an option for adjudication in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action[,]" id. at 497, 804 S.E.2d 830 ; and (3) vacated the portion of the order relieving DSS from making further reunification efforts because the trial court failed to follow the statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c) in the initial disposition order, id. at 500, 804 S.E.2d 830. This Court initially granted respondent-father's petition for discretionary review on 7 December 2017, In re J.M. , 370 N.C. 383, 807 S.E.2d 146 (2017), but later, on 8 June 2018, determined discretionary review was improvidently allowed. In re J.M. , 371 N.C. 132, 813 S.E.2d 847 (2018).
¶ 8 The trial court continued to conduct permanency planning review hearings while respondent-father's appeals were pending, but DSS was unable to proceed with the Court of Appeals’ remand related to Jazmin while respondent-father's petition for discretionary review to this Court was pending.
¶ 9 On 6 August 2019, the children's guardian ad litem (GAL) filed separate motions to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin and James. The motion to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin alleged grounds existed to terminate parental rights for neglect, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care, and willful abandonment. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), (7) (2019). The motion to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to James alleged grounds existed to terminate parental rights for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care, and willful abandonment. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3), (7) (2019).
¶ 10 On 8 August 2019, the initial juvenile petition came back on for hearing in the trial court pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ remand related to Jazmin. The hearing was conducted over the course of 8, 9, and 12 August 2019. On 1 November 2019, the trial court entered adjudicatory and dispositional orders (the "remand orders") that adjudicated Jazmin to be a neglected juvenile, continued her custody in DSS, suspended respondent-father's visitation, and set the permanent plan for Jazmin as adoption with secondary plans for reunification or guardianship.
¶ 11 Although the remand orders were entered on 1 November 2019, they were not served until 27 November 2019. On 9 December 2019, respondent-father filed timely notice of appeal from the remand orders to the Court of Appeals.2 See N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(b) (2019).
¶ 12 Also on 9 December 2019, after respondent-father filed his notice of appeal from the remand orders, the GAL's motions to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin and James came on for hearing. The termination hearing was conducted over the course of 9 and 10 December 2019, and the trial court entered separate orders terminating respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin and James on 22 January 2020. In one order, the court concluded grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1), (3), and (7), and it was in Jazmin's best interests to terminate parental rights. In the other order, the trial court concluded grounds existed to terminate respondent-father's parental rights to James pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1)–(3) and (7), and it was in James's best interests to terminate parental rights. Respondent-father appealed from both termination orders.
¶ 13 On appeal from the order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin, respondent-father argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with termination of his parental rights while he appealed the remand orders. We agree the trial court exceeded the statutory limits placed on the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and hold the order terminating respondent-father's parental rights to Jazmin is void.
¶ 14 "Subject matter jurisdiction is the indispensable foundation upon which valid judicial decisions rest, and in its absence a court has no power to act[.]" In re T.R.P. , 360 N.C. 588, 590, 636 S.E.2d 787 (2006) (citing Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc. , 244 N.C. 84, 90, 92 S.E.2d 673 (1956) ). "Because a court must have subject matter jurisdiction in order to adjudicate the case before it, ‘a court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can be raised at any time.’ " In re L.T. , 374 N.C. 567, 569, 843 S.E.2d 199 (2020) (quoting In re K.J.L. , 363 N.C. 343, 346, 677 S.E.2d 835 (2009) ).
¶ 15 "In matters arising under the Juvenile Code, the court's subject matter jurisdiction is established by statute." In re K.J.L. , 363 N.C. at 345, 677 S.E.2d 835. Therefore, "the General Assembly can, within the bounds of the Constitution, set whatever limits it wishes on the possession or exercise of that jurisdiction, including limits on jurisdiction during a pending appeal." In re M.I.W. , 365 N.C. 374, 377, 722 S.E.2d 469 (2012).
¶ 16 As we explained in In re M.I.W. , "[g]enerally, N.C.G.S. § 1-294 operates to stay further proceedings in the trial court upon perfection of an appeal."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re B.B.
...jurisdiction in termination proceedings while disposition of an appeal is pending." In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298, 2021-NCSC-48, ¶ 17, 857 S.E.2d 119.Exercising jurisdiction, in the context of the Juvenile Code, requires putting the [trial] court's jurisdiction into action by holding hearings, ......
- In re L.R.L.B.
-
In re O.E.M.
...set whatever limits it wishes on the possession or exercise of that jurisdiction." In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298, 2021-NCSC-48, ¶ 15, 857 S.E.2d 119 (quoting In re M.I.W. , 365 N.C. 374, 377, 722 S.E.2d 469 (2012) ). As enacted by the legislature, the trial court "has exclusive, original jurisd......
-
In re B.S.
...failure by counsel to advise concerning these inherent duties cannot be prejudicial. In re J.M. , 377 N.C. 298, 2021-NCSC-48, ¶¶ 35–36, 857 S.E.2d 119.¶ 13 Based on the foregoing, our examination of the record, and the undisputed factual findings, we conclude that there is no reasonable pro......