Mitchell, Matter of
| Decision Date | 03 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. COA96-984,COA96-984 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jessica MITCHELL, Juvenile. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Banzet, Banzet & Thompson by Lewis A. Thompson, III, Warrenton, for respondent-appellants.
Pelfrey & Pelfrey by Melissa D. Pelfrey, Norlina, Attorney Advocate for the Guardian ad Litem.
Frank W. Ballance, Jr. & Associates, P.A. by Garey M. Ballance, Warrenton, for petitioner-appellee.
Respondent parents appeal from an order adjudicating their daughter a neglected juvenile as defined in G.S. § 7A-517(21). The procedural history is as follows: On 18 March 1996, the Warren County Department of Social Services (DSS) received information suggesting that the juvenile had been sexually abused. On the same date, DSS formulated a Child Protective Services Protection Plan, to which the respondents agreed. On 21 March 1996, DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging the juvenile to be a neglected juvenile. No summons was issued as required by G.S. § 7A-564, however, respondents and their attorney appeared before the district court judge for a non-secure custody hearing. From the record, it appears that respondents' counsel moved to dismiss the petition because no summons had been issued; the motion was apparently denied and the hearing went forward resulting in the entry of an order providing for the child to remain in the legal custody of her parents, but requiring that she reside with her maternal grandmother, and imposing certain other conditions specified in the order.
On 18 April 1996 respondents' counsel filed a written motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that no summons had ever been issued. The motion was denied by written order dated 13 May 1996, in which the district court concluded that since respondents had appeared with counsel at the 21 March 1996 hearing, the court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. On 7 June 1996 the district court entered an order adjudicating the juvenile a neglected juvenile, providing that she remain in the custody of respondents, requiring that respondents undergo counseling, and providing for supervision by DSS.
__________
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter of this juvenile action and the persons of the respondents without the proper issuance of summons. We hold that it did not.
A juvenile action, including a proceeding in which a juvenile is alleged to be abused or neglected, is commenced by the filing of a petition. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-563. G.S. § 7A-564(a) provides "[i]mmediately after a petition has been filed alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, dependent, undisciplined, or delinquent, the clerk shall issue a summons ..." (emphasis added). In a juvenile action, the petition is the pleading; the summons is the process. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-559. The issuance and service of process is the means by which the court obtains jurisdiction. Latham v. Cherry, 111 N.C.App. 871, 433 S.E.2d 478 (1993), cert. denied, 335 N.C. 556, 441 S.E.2d 116 (1994); Childress v. Forsyth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.J.L.
...which were cured by waiver when respondent appeared and fully participated at the TPR hearing. Respondent cites In re Mitchell, 126 N.C.App. 432, 485 S.E.2d 623 (1997), to contend that the trial court did not acquire subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying juvenile file, which gave ......
-
Hopeful v. Etchepare, LLC
...under the rule, the action is deemed never to have commenced."). [¶24] The North Carolina Supreme Court has since negated the holding in Mitchell. In In re K.J.L., court held that the failure to legally issue a summons does not implicate the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a......
-
In re A.F.H-G.
...is issued the court acquires jurisdiction over neither the persons nor the subject matter of the action." In re Mitchell, 126 N.C.App. 432, 433, 485 S.E.2d 623, 624 (1997) (citation In Beck v. Voncannon, 237 N.C. 707, 75 S.E.2d 895 (1953), the defendant asserted that the trial court was wit......
-
In re N.C.H.
...of parental rights, perhaps because the juvenile is both a person and the subject matter of the litigation. See In re Mitchell, 126 N.C.App. 432, 433, 485 S.E.2d 623, 624 (1997) ("In a juvenile action, the petition is the pleading; the summons is the process. The issuance and service of pro......