{
  "id": 11433316,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: JASON MATTHEW POWERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Powers",
  "decision_date": "2001-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-820",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "144 N.C. App. 140"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 5302,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47410486093976906
    },
    "sha256": "a0d8d88d9858fd45883f4f768ee998a9a2e1a462948856d6440e1dfd0ffef9d7",
    "simhash": "1:8f7fd116662cffc0",
    "word_count": 849
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.896074+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and TYSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: JASON MATTHEW POWERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nKathy Powers and Charles Powers (Respondents) appeal from a juvenile disposition and commitment order filed 10 March 2000 committing Respondents\u2019 minor child Jason Matthew Powers (the Juvenile) \u201cto the Office of Juvenile Justice for placement in one of the residential facilities operated by the Division, for ... an indefinite term for a minimum of 6 months and not to exceed the [J]uvenile\u2019s eighteenth birthday.\u201d\nThe record shows the Juvenile, a fifteen year old, was charged in juvenile court as being a delinquent juvenile as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-517(12), in that he \u201cunlawfully, willfully and feloniously did steal, take and carry away a 1989 Honda Civic\u201d in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72(a). At the adjudication hearing, the Juvenile admitted to the acts alleged in the petition and the trial court adjudicated the Juvenile delinquent. The trial court subsequently held a disposi-tional hearing, at which the Juvenile, the Juvenile\u2019s attorney, and Respondents were present. At the hearing, the Juvenile\u2019s attorney made brief remarks. He then stated to the trial court, \u201cI would tender [Respondents] to the Court for any questions you may have of [them].\u201d The trial court responded, \u201cI don\u2019t have anything else\u201d and the hearing was concluded. Respondents did not request an opportunity to present evidence or to address the trial court at the disposi-tional hearing.\nThe dispositive issue is whether the trial court denied Respondents their right to \u201cpresent evidence\u201d and \u201cadvise the court concerning the disposition they believe to be in the best interests of the juvenile\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(b) when, after Respondents were tendered to the trial court, the trial court did not question Respondents.\nRespondents argue they \u201cwere not given the opportunity to present evidence or to be heard regarding disposition,\u201d in violation of section 7B-2501(b). We disagree.\nSection 7B-2501(b) provides that at a dispositional hearing, \u201cthe juvenile\u2019s parent[s] ... shall have an opportunity to present evidence, and they may advise the court concerning the disposition they believe to be in the best interests of the juvenile.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2501(b) (1999).\nIn this case, the Juvenile\u2019s attorney stated to the trial court, \u201cI would tender [Respondents] to the Court for any questions you may have of [them].\u201d The trial court responded that it did not \u201chave anything else,\u201d and the hearing was concluded. The trial court\u2019s decision not to question Respondents did not constitute a refusal to allow Respondents to present evidence or to advise the trial court regarding the appropriate disposition, as section 7B-2501(b) places no affirmative duty on the trial court to question the parents of a juvenile. Additionally, the record contains no evidence Respondents attempted to offer evidence or to advise the trial court during the dispositional hearing. Accordingly, Respondents were not denied the right to present evidence and advise the trial court under section 7B-2501(b).\nAffirmed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and TYSON concur.\n. Repealed by Session Laws 1998-202, s. 5, effective July 1, 1999. See now \u00a7 7B-1501(7) (1999).\n. We note that the parents of a juvenile have a statutory right to appeal from \u201cany final order of the court\u201d relating to undisciplined and/or delinquent juveniles. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2602 (1999); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2604 (1999). In this case, Respondents, the parents, appeal based on the alleged violation of a right provided directly to them by the North Carolina Juvenile Code. Thus, because Respondents argue they were prejudiced by a denial of their rights, we need not address the issue of whether a parent would have standing to challenge on appeal the alleged denial of a right of the juvenile or to challenge an alleged error during the adjudicatory or dispositional proceedings that did not affect the rights of the parent.\n. Additionally, Respondents argue their alleged denial of the opportunity to present evidence at the dispositional hearing violated their right to due process under the United States Constitution. As the North Carolina Legislature has provided parents with the statutory right to present evidence and to be heard at a dispositional hearing and Respondents were not denied that statutory right in this case, we need not address whether the failure to provide parents with this right is a violation of the parents\u2019 right to due process.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Diane Martin Pom/per, for the State.",
      "Jon C. Michael for respondent-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: JASON MATTHEW POWERS\nNo. COA00-820\n(Filed 5 June 2001)\nJuveniles\u2014 delinquency hearing \u2014 right of parents to be heard\nA juvenile\u2019s parents were not denied their right to present evidence at a dispositional hearing where the juvenile\u2019s parents were tendered for any questions the court might have, but the court did not question them. The record contains no evidence that the parents attempted to offer evidence or advise the court during the dispositional hearing and the court had no affirmative duty to question them. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2501(b).\nAppeal by respondent parents from order filed 10 March 2000 by Judge Martin J. Gottholm in Davidson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2001.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Diane Martin Pom/per, for the State.\nJon C. Michael for respondent-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 170
}