{
  "id": 8376455,
  "name": "IN RE: C.M.H., B.N.H., S.W.A",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re C.M.H.",
  "decision_date": "2007-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA07-851",
  "first_page": "807",
  "last_page": "809",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 N.C. App. 807"
    }
  ],
  "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": "636 S.E.2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637106
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "792"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/636/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2007 WL 3254398",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_west",
      "reporter": "WL",
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "*8"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9248547
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/152/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3787934
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593-94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "426 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "436"
        },
        {
          "page": "436"
        },
        {
          "page": "436-38"
        },
        {
          "page": "436-38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525216
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287-88"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/109/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2007 WL 2989562",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_west",
      "reporter": "WL",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "*2",
          "parenthetical": "citing In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C. App. 285, 287-88, 426 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1993); In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593-94, 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.702,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6898083633447355
    },
    "sha256": "d519b723aa71ee8b45c7bbd912ab1cf57c66be44c17bc74b2ca4a03110347e95",
    "simhash": "1:07a3c0aad5cf2666",
    "word_count": 624
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:56.575920+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TYSON and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: C.M.H., B.N.H., S.W.A."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nRespondent-father and respondent-mother (\u201crespondents\u201d) appeal the 27 April 2007 order of the trial court terminating their parental rights. Respondents raised several issues, one of which was the failure of the petitioner to attach a copy of the order granting custody of the three minor children to the Harnett County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) to the motion to terminate parental rights, as required by North Carolina General Statute \u00a7 7B-1104(5). See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104(5) (2005). In response, petitioner filed an amendment to the record with this Court. The amendment was an affidavit by the Deputy Clerk of Harnett County verifying that \u201ca copy of the Adjudication Order was attached to the Motion to Terminate Parental Rights at the time of filing as shown by the court file.\u201d The amendment included a complete copy of the petition and attached order as filed with the trial court. Although this issue was not raised in either respondent\u2019s brief, we note that the 21 April 2005 motion to terminate parental rights was not verified.\nA petition or motion to terminate parental rights is governed by North Carolina General Statute \u00a7 7B-4104 which provides that \u201c[t]he petition, or motion pursuant to G.S. 7B-1102, shall be verified by the petitioner or movant . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104 (2005) (emphasis added). \u201c[A] violation of the verification requirement of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-1104 has been held to be a jurisdictional defect per se.\u201d In re T.M.H., No. COA07-609, 2007 WL 2989562, *2 (N.C. App. Oct. 16, 2007) (citing In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C. App. 285, 287-88, 426 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1993); In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593-94, 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006)). \u201c[A] question of jurisdiction ... maybe addressed by this Court at any time, sua sponte, regardless of whether [parties] properly preserved it for appellate review.\u201d Guthrie v. Conroy, 152 N.C. App. 15, 17, 567 S.E.2d 403, 406 (2002).\nIn In Re Triscari Children, the father appealed the trial court\u2019s orders which terminated his parental rights. 109 N.C. App. 285, 286, 426 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1993). This Court vacated the orders finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitions to terminate parental rights were not verified. Id. at 286-89, 426 S.E.2d at 436-38. The Juvenile Code has been recodified since In Re Triscari Children, but the North Carolina Supreme Court has determined, subsequent to the recodification, that verification of petitions is a requirement to invoke subject matter jurisdiction. In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 636 S.E.2d 787 (2006).\nPetitioner\u2019s failure to verify the petition to terminate parental rights left the trial court without subject matter jurisdiction. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1104; see also In re No. COA07-609, 2007 WL 2989562 (N.C. App. Oct. 16, 2007); In Re Triscari Children at 286-89, 426 S.E.2d at 436-38. \u201cIn the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court\u2019s order is void and should be vacated.\u201d In re D.B., No. 06-1426-2, 2007 WL 3254398, *8 (N.C. App. Nov. 6, 2007). Therefore, we vacate the 27 April 2007 order terminating the parental rights of respondents.\nVACATED.\nJudges TYSON and JACKSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STROUD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Marshall Woodall and Duncan B. McCormick for Harnett County Department of Social Services.",
      "Elizabeth Myrick Boone for guardian ad litem.",
      "Lisa Skinner Lefler for respondent-appellant-father.",
      "Sofie W. Hosford for respondent-appellant-mother."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: C.M.H., B.N.H., S.W.A.\nNo. COA07-851\n(Filed 18 December 2007)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 failure to verify petition\u2014 lack of subject matter jurisdiction\nThe trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate respondents\u2019 parental rights where the petition to terminate parental rights was unverified.\nAppeal by respondent-father and respondent-mother from order entered 27 April 2007 by Judge Resson 0. Faircloth in District Court, Harnett County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 2007.\nE. Marshall Woodall and Duncan B. McCormick for Harnett County Department of Social Services.\nElizabeth Myrick Boone for guardian ad litem.\nLisa Skinner Lefler for respondent-appellant-father.\nSofie W. Hosford for respondent-appellant-mother."
  },
  "file_name": "0807-01",
  "first_page_order": 837,
  "last_page_order": 839
}