In re A.J.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025)
Held:
Vacated and Remanded
There is a dissent
by Woods, J.
- Facts: Mother filed the petition to terminate Father’s rights. The child’s GAL moved to dismiss the entire petition for noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(1) as the petition did not state the child’s full legal name as it appeared on his birth certificate but instead identified the child by his first name, middle initial, and last name. Mother failed to provide the child’s birth certificate or other documentation verifying the child’s name. The trial court ultimately dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104. Mother appeals.
- Appellate courts review misapprehensions of law and subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
- G.S. 7B-1104(1) requires that the TPR petition “with respect to [unknown] facts[,] . . . state . . . [t]he name of the juvenile as it appears on the juvenile’s birth certificate . . . .” Sl. Op. at 3. No appellate cases have addressed whether noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(1) deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals notes that“[i]t is clear that our Supreme Court jurisprudence is moving away [from] depriving trial courts of subject matter jurisdiction based on technical noncompliance in pleadings.” Sl Op. at 6. The court of appeals previously interpretated a party’s noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(5) in In re T.M., 182 N.C. App. 566, 571, aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 683 (2007), and extends that interpretation to review noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(1). Technical noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(1) will not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction unless the party alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction shows that the petitioner’s noncompliance was prejudicial. Prejudice cannot be shown where the statutory requirements are otherwise met in the record as a whole. A party cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction. Father’s responsive pleadings are immaterial and cannot confer the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
- Mother failed to comply with G.S. 7B-1104(1). The petition stated the child’s first and last name and middle initial; did not state the child’s middle name; and did not make a statement that the name stated in the petition matches the child’s birth certificate. The record does not contain the child’s birth certificate or any other information that the trial court could use to verify the child’s identity and name.
- The trial court did not find Mother’s noncompliance with G.S. 7B-1104(1) prejudiced Father such that dismissal of the petition was required. Father did not show prejudice and does not allege that the child has not been properly identified in the petition. The trial court’s order dismissing the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded for the trial court to determine whether Father was prejudiced.
- Dissent: Mother’s failure to include the child’s full legal name in the petition as it appears on the child’s birth certificate is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the petition. G.S. 7B-1104(1) mandates that the petitioner allege specific language and therefore examination of substantial compliance or prejudice is improper since noncompliance with the statutory mandate is fatal to the validity of the petition. This case is distinguishable from the facts of In re T.M. in that Mother presented no evidence from which the trial court could conclusively identify or verify the child’s full legal name as it appears on the child’s birth certificate to otherwise comply with the statutory requirement. Additionally, if examination of prejudice were appropriate, the juvenile is the proper party against whom to determine whether Mother’s noncompliance was prejudicial. The GAL representing the child moved to dismiss the petition based on Mother’s noncompliance, not Father.
Category:
Termination of Parental RightsStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
G.S. 7B Jurisdiction