In re B.E., ___ N.C. App. ___ (November 5, 2024)
Held:
Dismissed
- Facts: Mother appeals neglect adjudication and disposition orders entered by a North Carolina court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to three of her six children. A Virginia court had previously entered a divorce decree that incorporated a separation agreement between Mother and Father that granted Mother custody of the three children at issue. DSS filed a petition in North Carolina in June 2023. At the adjudicatory hearing, Father testified that their two biological children had lived with Mother in North Carolina their entire lives and their adopted child resided in North Carolina for several years with the exception of a short temporary absence. Mother argues the North Carolina court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to enter the orders due to the custody order previously entered in Virginia.
- The standard of review of whether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is a matter of law reviewed de novo.
- The jurisdictional requirements of the UCCJEA must be met for a court to have authority to adjudicate juvenile petitions. The UCCJEA includes four bases for a trial court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over an initial custody determination, which include obtaining jurisdiction as a court in the child’s home state or by a court of the home state of the child declining to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that another State is the more appropriate forum. G.S. 50A-201(a)(1), (2). “A child’s ‘home state’ under the UCCJEA is the state in which the child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding, including a proceeding on abuse, neglect, or dependency allegations.’ ” Sl. Op. at 10 (citing G.S. 50A-102(7)).
- G.S. 50A-303 requires a trial court to recognize and enforce a child custody determination of another state only if that other state “exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity” with the UCCJEA. The North Carolina court was not required to recognize the Virginia custody order as the order was entered without subject matter jurisdiction and was null and void under the UCCJEA.
- The North Carolina court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the adjudication and disposition orders for the three children. The custody order in Virginia was entered in 2023 after all three children had been living in North Carolina since 2018. The Virginia court was required under the UCCJEA to determine the children’s home state before entering a child custody order. North Carolina was the children’s home state and North Carolina did not decline jurisdiction. Mother did not challenge the North Carolina court’s finding of fact that North Carolina is the children’s home state, which is binding on appeal. The court rejects Mother’s argument that the court was required to look at both home state and conduct a significant connection analysis under G.S. 7B-201(a)(2) and Virginia’s companion statute. Significant connection analysis is required only if there is no home state.
Category:
UCCJEAStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
Home State