In re K.C., 292 N.C. App. 231 (2024)
Held:
Vacated
- Facts: DSS filed juvenile petitions alleging neglect of two children based on reports of domestic violence and improper discipline in the home. At the adjudication hearing DSS presented evidence including testimony of the social worker and child’s forensic interviewer, and an hour-long videotape of the forensic interview with the older child. In the video, the child recounted arguments between Mother and Father in the home, injuries to Mother, and Father’s discipline of the younger sibling. Father’s testimony denied the events described in the video, and Mother did not testify. The court found DSS failed to provide clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the children were neglected, ordered the children reunited with their parents, and filed a written order dismissing the petitions. DSS filed a Rule 59-60 motion requesting that the trial court amend or grant relief from its judgment because of the difficulty in hearing the video. At the hearing on the motion, the court stated it had difficulty hearing the video at the adjudication hearing and requested a transcript of the video over Mother and Father’s objections. The court granted the Rule 59-60 motion, reversed its earlier ruling, and adjudicated the children neglected, stating that the transcript of the video was clearer and more understandable than the video when it was played at the adjudicatory hearing. After the adjudication and later initial dispositional orders were entered, Mother and Father appeal the adjudication and disposition orders for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. “Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including for the first time” on appeal. Sl. Op. at 14 (citation omitted).
- “A judgment is void, when there is want of jurisdiction by the court over subject matter jurisdiction of the action, and a void judgment may be disregarded and treated as a nullity everywhere. . . . A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment. . . . [A]ll proceedings founded upon it are worthless.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted).
- After a court obtains jurisdiction by the filing of a petition, jurisdiction continues “until terminated by order of the court or until the juvenile reaches the age of 18 years or is otherwise emancipated, whichever occurs first.” Sl. Op. at 15 (emphasis in original) (quoting G.S. 7B-201(a)). Once jurisdiction is terminated, “the court thereafter shall not modify or enforce any order previously entered in the case. . . The legal status of the juvenile and the custodial rights of the parties shall revert to the status they were before the juvenile petition was filed[.]” Sl. Op. at 15 (emphasis in original) (quoting G.S. 7B-201(b)). “If the court finds that the allegations have not been proven, the court shall dismiss the petition with prejudice, and if the juvenile is in nonsecure custody, the juvenile shall be released to the parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker.” Sl. Op. at 15 (emphasis in original) (quoting G.S. 7B-807(a)).
- The use of Rules 59 and 60 are not applicable when the court terminates its jurisdiction. The court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the Rule 59-60 motion. The court’s jurisdiction terminated when it entered its order dismissing the juvenile petitions for failure to prove the allegations of neglect contained in the petitions; any orders entered thereafter are void ab initio for want of jurisdiction (citing In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (2006)). The court had several opportunities to “consider the allegations, weigh the credibility, and make findings of fact” regarding the videotape evidence at the initial adjudication hearing. The court’s oral ruling demonstrates it weighed the child’s credibility in making its adjudicatory findings, stating that DSS could have offered Mother’s medical records or Father’s criminal history to support the evidence presented. After concluding DSS did not prove its case by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the court ordered the children reunited with Mother and Father and entered its order dismissing the petitions as required by G.S. 7B-807(a), thereby terminating jurisdiction under G.S. 7B-201(a). Rule 59-60 motions “cannot operate as a method to claw back jurisdiction and reconsider the evidence” and the court “cannot swap its initial adjudication decision after dismissal of the petition.” Sl. Op. at 17-18.
- The opinion notes that DSS could have appealed the initial adjudication decision pursuant to G.S. 7B-1001(a)(2) as an involuntary dismissal of a petition, and that a Rule 59-60 motion cannot “be used as a substitute for an appeal.” Sl. Op. at 17 n.3 (citation omitted).
Category:
Abuse, Neglect, DependencyStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic: