{ "id": 8302880, "name": "IN RE: T.B., J.B., C.B., Minor Children", "name_abbreviation": "In re T.B.", "decision_date": "2006-06-06", "docket_number": "No. COA05-1059", "first_page": "790", "last_page": "793", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "177 N.C. App. 790" } ], "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": "623 S.E.2d 300", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634604 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568279 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 N.C. App. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552980 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/11/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S.E.2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630588 ], "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 S.E.2d 864", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "865-66", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8917259 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8301489 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/177/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8349811 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 N.C. App. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8301537 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing McKinney, 158 N.C. App. at 447, 581 S.E.2d at 797" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/177/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 S.E.2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" }, { "page": "558-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 806", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525850 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" }, { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0806-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 793", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Transportation of Juveniles, 102 N.C. App. 806, 808, 403 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1991)" }, { "page": "797" }, { "page": "797", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9188012 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Transportation of Juveniles, 102 N.C. App. 806, 808, 403 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1991)" }, { "page": "447" }, { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169132 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0666-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 465, "char_count": 9123, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4455627394882537e-07, "percentile": 0.6540228793261692 }, "sha256": "cfff9e1eec08338ec608f9ed9c89f398157d3aefb0536ba6515051c16be5e23a", "simhash": "1:2f99046c7cfe9406", "word_count": 1491 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:29.259677+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MCCULLOUGH and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN RE: T.B., J.B., C.B., Minor Children" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEVINSON, Judge.\nRespondents appeal from orders terminating their respective parental rights in their minor children, T.B., C.B., and J.B. For the reasons that follow, we vacate these orders.\nIn December 2002 the Vance County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions to terminate respondents\u2019 parental rights in the minor children. Prior to a hearing, respondents filed motions to dismiss the petitions for failure to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104. The trial court denied their motions, and on 2 December 2004 the court entered orders terminating respondents\u2019 parental rights in their children. From these orders respondents appeal. The sole issue raised on appeal is the trial court\u2019s denial of respondents\u2019 motions to dismiss for failure to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104 (2005). Specifically, respondents assert that petitioner\u2019s failure to attach to the petition a copy of an order awarding legal custody of the children to DSS deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. We first review the applicable statutory and common law on this issue.\n\u201cSubject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to deal with the kind of action in question[, and] ... is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute.\u201d Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987) (citation omitted). \u201cMoreover, a court\u2019s inherent authority does not allow it to act where it would otherwise lack jurisdiction. \u2018Courts have the inherent power to do only those things which are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of their jurisdiction.\u2019 \u201d In re McKinney, 158 N.C. App. 441, 443, 581 S.E.2d 793, 795 (2003) (quoting In re Transportation of Juveniles, 102 N.C. App. 806, 808, 403 S.E.2d 557, 559 (1991)) (citation omitted).\n\u201cSubject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by consent, waiver or estoppel, and failure to demur or object to the jurisdiction is immaterial.\u201d Stark v. Ratashara, 177 N.C. App. 449, \u2014, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014, \u2014 (2006) (citing McKinney, 158 N.C. App. at 447, 581 S.E.2d at 797). The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be considered by the court at any time, and may be raised for the first time on appeal. \u201cThis Court recognizes its duty to insure subject matter jurisdiction exists prior to considering an appeal.\u201d In the Matter of E.T.S., 175 N.C. App. 32, 35, 623 S.E.2d 300, 302 (2005) (citation omitted).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1101 (2005), the trial court has \u201cexclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine any petition or motion relating to termination of parental rights to any juvenile who resides in, is found in, or is in the legal or actual custody of a county department of social services ... at the time of filing of the petition or motion.\u201d This statute confers upon the court general jurisdiction over termination of parental rights proceedings.\nHowever, \u201ca trial court\u2019s general jurisdiction over the type of proceeding or over the parties does not confer jurisdiction over the specific action.\u201d McKinney, 158 N.C. App. at 447, 581 S.E.2d at 797 (citation omitted). \u201c \u2018Thus, before a court may act there must be some appropriate application invoking the judicial power of the court with respect to the matter in question.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 444, 581 S.E.2d at 795 (quoting In re Transportation of Juveniles, 102 N.C. App. at 808, 403 S.E.2d at 558-59). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1103 (2005), identifies the parties with standing to file a termination of parental rights petition, and provides in pertinent part that:\n(a) A petition or motion to terminate the parental rights of either or both parents to his, her, or their minor juvenile may only be filed by one or more of the following:\n. (3) Any county department of social services, consolidated county human services agency, or licensed child-placing agency to whom custody of the juvenile has been given by a court of competent jurisdiction.\nG.S. \u00a7 7B-1103(a)(3).\nConsequently, where DSS \u201cno longer had custody as of the date of the filing of the petitionf,] DSS, therefore, lacked standing to file the petition.\u201d In re D.D.J., D.M.J., 177 N.C. App. 441, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2006).\nIn In re Miller, 162 N.C. App. 355, 590 S.E.2d 864 (2004), the respondent contended that, because DSS no longer had custody of the child at the time the petition was filed, it lacked standing to file a petition for termination of parental rights. This Court agreed, and held:\nStanding is jurisdictional in naturef.]... Because DSS no longer had custody of the child. DSS lacked standing.... to file a petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights. A North Carolina court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the petitioner or plaintiff has standing. . . . Here, because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the proceedings to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights were a nullity.\nId. at 357, 358-59, 590 S.E.2d at 865-66 (emphasis added).\nThus, to have standing to file for termination of parental rights, DSS must prove that it has legal custody of the child at the time the petition is filed. \u201cCourts of record speak only in their records. They preserve written memorials of their proceedings, which are exclusively the evidence of those proceedingsf.]\u201d State v. Tola, 222 N.C. 406, 408, 23 S.E.2d 321, 323 (1942) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore:\nThe proceedings of courts of record can be proved by their records only; that is by reason of the vagueness and uncertainty of parol proof as to such matters, and of the facility which the record affords of proving them with certainty. Public policy and convenience require the rule, and a necessary consequence from it is the absolute and undeniable presumption that the record speaks the truth.\nState v. Michaels, 11 N.C. App. 110, 112, 180 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted).\nWe conclude that, where DSS files a motion for termination of parental rights, the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the record includes a copy of an order, in effect when the petition is filed, that awards DSS custody of the child. This is implicitly recognized by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104(5) (2005), which sets out the requirements for a petition for termination of parental rights, and provides in relevant part that the petition \u201cshall set forth . . . (5) The name and address of any person or ag\u00e9ncy to whom custody of the juvenile has been given by a court of this or any other state; and a copy of the custody order shall be attached to the petition or motion.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 7B-1104(5) (emphasis added).\nIn the instant case, because the petition was not accompanied by a copy of the custody order then in effect, we conclude that the petition failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court. This omission need not have been fatal if petitioner had simply amended the petition by attaching the proper custody order or otherwise ensured the custody order was made a part of the record before the trial court. Thus, it was the failure by DSS either to attach the custody order to the petition or to remedy this omission that ultimately deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. .\n\u201cA universal principle as old as the law is that the proceedings of a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter are a nullity.\u201d Burgess v. Gibbs, 262 N.C. 462, 465, 137 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1964). We conclude that, because the omission of the custody order from the petition was never remedied by amendment of the petition or later production of the order, the trial court never obtained subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the orders for termination of parental rights are vacated without prejudice to petitioner\u2019s right to bring proper petitions before the Court.\nVacated.\nJudges MCCULLOUGH and TYSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEVINSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Law Offices of Carolyn J. Yancey, P.A., by Carolyn J. Yancey, for petitioner-appellee Vance County Department of Social Services.", "Duncan B. McCormick, for respondent mother.", "Winifred H. Dillon, for respondent father.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Heather Adams, Ellen Jemigan, and Martin H. Brinkley, for Guardian ad Litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN RE: T.B., J.B., C.B., Minor Children\nNo. COA05-1059\n(Filed 6 June 2006)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 standing to bring petition\u2014 DSS custody of children required \u2014 not reflected in record\nDSS does not have standing to file a termination of parental rights proceeding when it does not have legal custody of the children. Orders for the termination of parental rights in this case were vacated (without prejudice to bringing new petitions) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the petition did not have attached an order awarding custody of the children to DSS, and the omission was never remedied by amending the petition or otherwise making the custody order a part of the record before the trial court.\nAppeal by respondents from orders entered 2 December 2004 by Judge Daniel F. Finch in Vance County District Court. Heard in the .Court of Appeals 16 March 2006.\nLaw Offices of Carolyn J. Yancey, P.A., by Carolyn J. Yancey, for petitioner-appellee Vance County Department of Social Services.\nDuncan B. McCormick, for respondent mother.\nWinifred H. Dillon, for respondent father.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Heather Adams, Ellen Jemigan, and Martin H. Brinkley, for Guardian ad Litem." }, "file_name": "0790-01", "first_page_order": 824, "last_page_order": 827 }