{
  "id": 8184954,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: A.J.H-R. and K.M.H-R., MINOR CHILDREN",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re A.J.H-R.",
  "decision_date": "2007-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. COA07-93",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 N.C. App. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "619 S.E.2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633985
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/619/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "636 S.E.2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637106
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "791"
        },
        {
          "page": "791-92"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/636/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "613 S.E.2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632948
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/613/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N.C. App. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8353953
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/173/0541-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3787934
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "426 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525216
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/109/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. App. 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9006115
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/170/0564-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "06 J 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "06 J 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 373,
    "char_count": 7068,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37925879076347696
    },
    "sha256": "0197040678fc33085057adb10898fd61d8f62dc88f3ccbf18926cfe846196238",
    "simhash": "1:0bbf0720727b8df4",
    "word_count": 1116
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:59.559545+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JACKSON and STROUD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: A.J.H-R. and K.M.H-R., MINOR CHILDREN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nRespondent-Mother appeals adjudication and disposition order as to her son, A.J.H-R., and her daughter, K.M.H-R. Because we conclude that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings, we vacate the trial court\u2019s order.\nIn September of 2006, the Wilkes County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed separate juvenile petitions alleging that A.J.H-R. (06 J 150) and K.M.H-R. (06 J 154) were neglected juveniles. DSS took nonsecure custody of the minor children the same day that each petition was filed. After conducting a hearing on the neglect petitions, the trial court adjudicated the minor children neglected and ordered legal and physical custody of the minor children placed with DSS. Respondent-Mother appeals.\nThe dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the adjudication and disposition order because the initial juvenile petitions were not properly signed and verified pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-403(a).\nThe issue of jurisdiction over the matter may be raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Z.T.B., 170 N.C. App. 564, 613 S.E.2d 298 (2005) (holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial court\u2019s subject matter jurisdiction, the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal). Section 7B-200(a) confers on the trial court exclusive, original jurisdiction \u201cover any case involving a juvenile who is alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-200(a) (2005). In juvenile proceedings, verified pleadings are necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C. App. 285, 426 S.E.2d 435 (1993). Section 7B-403 specifically provides that \u201cthe petition shall be drawn by the director, verified before an official authorized to administer oaths, and filed by the clerk, recording the date of filing.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-403(a) (2005). Verification requires a petitioner to attest \u201cthat the contents of the pleading verified are true to the knowledge of the person making the verification[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 11(b) (2005).\nOur Supreme Court recently addressed the effect of verification of a juvenile petition in In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 636 S.E.2d 787 (2006). The Court noted that \u201cverification of the petition in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-403 is a vital link in the chain of proceedings carefully designed to protect children at risk on one hand while avoiding undue interference with family rights on the other.\u201d Id. at 591, 636 S.E.2d at 791. In interpreting \u201cthe integrated nature of the statutes constituting the Juvenile Code[,]\u201d our Supreme Court held that the trial court could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an allegedly neglected juvenile in a custody review hearing when the juvenile petition initiating the case was neither signed nor verified as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-403(a), and therefore, the trial court\u2019s review order was void ab initio. Id. at 593-94, 636 S.E.2d at 791-92.\nHere, the petitions were neither signed nor verified by the director of DSS. The verification section of the juvenile petition in case number 06 J 150 shows the \u201cSignature of Petitioner\u201d as: \u201cJames D. Bumgarner by MH\u201d with the \u201cDirector\u201d box checked. Similarly, the verification section in case number 06 J 154 shows the \u201cSignature of Petitioner\u201d as: \u201cJames D. Bumgarner by MHenderson\u201d with the \u201cDirector\u201d box checked. It is apparent from the record that the alleged signature which appears on the petitions was not in fact the director\u2019s signature. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 10B-3(25) (2005) (defining signature as \u201cthe act of personally signing one\u2019s name in ink by hand\u201d). Rather, the petitions were completed on the director\u2019s behalf, and he did not personally appear and sign or acknowledge signing his name before the person who allegedly verified his oaths.\nWe are unpersuaded by DSS\u2019s contention that Mary E. Henderson, a Child Protective Services Supervisor, signed the petitions as an authorized representative of the director. Although DSS is correct that juvenile petitions may be signed and verified by an authorized representative of the director, see In re T.R.P., 173 N.C. App. 541, 619 S.E.2d 525 (2005), aff\u2019d, 360 N.C. 588, 636 S.E.2d 787 (2006), that is not the case here. Instead, the record shows that \u201cMH\u201d and \u201cMHenderson\u201d completed the petitions on behalf of the director, not in her own capacity as the director\u2019s authorized representative. Further, we do not construe \u201cMH\u201d and \u201cMHenderson\u201d as signatures within the meaning of section 10B-3(25). Finally, the petitions do not indicate that they were signed by an authorized representative of the director. TKus, the petitions were neither signed nor verified by an authorized representative of the director. We conclude the petitions requesting the minor children be adjudicated neglected failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute and the trial court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court adjudicating the minor children neglected.\nVACATED.\nJudges JACKSON and STROUD concur.\n. The petitions demonstrate that the alleged verifications were \u201csworn and subscribed to before\u201d different deputy clerks of the Wilkes County Superior Court. \u201c \u2018Verification\u2019 . . . means a notarial act where a person certifies under oath or affirmation that the person witnessed the principal either execute, record, or acknowledge the principal\u2019s signature on an already-executed record.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 10B-3(28) (2005).\n. As stated, Ms. Henderson did not sign the petition in her own behalf, and the \u201cDirector\u201d box, not the \u201cAuthorized Representative\u201d box, under the signature line was checked.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEPHENS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul W. Freeman, Jr., for Petitioner-Appellee Wilkes County Department of Social Services.",
      "Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Reed J. Hollander and Stephen D. Martin, for Guardian ad Litem.",
      "Robert W. Ewing for Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: A.J.H-R. and K.M.H-R., MINOR CHILDREN\nNo. COA07-93\n(Filed 19 June 2007)\nChild Abuse and Neglect\u2014 lack of subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 improper verification of juvenile petition\nThe trial court\u2019s adjudication and disposition order in \u00e1 child neglect case is vacated based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because: (1) the initial juvenile petitions were not properly signed and verified by the director of DSS as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-403(a); and (2) although DSS is correct that juvenile petitions may be signed and verified by an authorized representative of the director, the record shows a Child Protective Services Supervisor completed the petitions on behalf of the director and not in her own capacity as the director\u2019s authorized representative.\nAppeal by Respondent-Mother from order entered 31 October 2006 by Judge Edgar B. Gregory in Wilkes County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May 2007.\nPaul W. Freeman, Jr., for Petitioner-Appellee Wilkes County Department of Social Services.\nNelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Reed J. Hollander and Stephen D. Martin, for Guardian ad Litem.\nRobert W. Ewing for Respondent-Appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 212
}