{
  "id": 4164383,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.T. & A.A.T.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re S.L.T. & A.A.T.",
  "decision_date": "2009-01-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA08-1223",
  "first_page": "127",
  "last_page": "129",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. App. 127"
    }
  ],
  "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": "665 S.E.2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641798
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "813",
          "parenthetical": "Stroud, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/665/0812-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "659 S.E.2d 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640690
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/659/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "665 S.E.2d 818",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641799
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "820",
          "parenthetical": "citing In re J.A.P., I.M.P., 189 N.C. App. 683, -, 659 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2008)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/665/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "653 S.E.2d 427",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639960
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "428-29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/653/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "655 S.E.2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640271
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "859"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/655/0858-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "657 S.E.2d 738",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640580
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "739-40"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/657/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "643 S.E.2d 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638053
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/643/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. App. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4160469
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Stroud, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/192/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4156746
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/189/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. App. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4160778
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing In re J.A.P., I.M.P., 189 N.C. App. 683, -, 659 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2008)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/192/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N.C. App. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8375092
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/187/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N.C. App. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4155948
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/188/0629-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4156760
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/189/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N.C. App. 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8173231
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "474-75"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/182/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "665 S.E.2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641798
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "813-18",
          "parenthetical": "Stroud, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/665/0812-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. App. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4160469
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Stroud, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/192/0445-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 4751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1359704754987646
    },
    "sha256": "585d45074cf33811db51f2f13a7cf0b7f184a79ab510850c7a7455318613ff9b",
    "simhash": "1:0fba638bd437add6",
    "word_count": 762
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.117771+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge ELMORE concurs.",
      "Judge STROUD dissents with a separate opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.T. & A.A.T."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nRespondent appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to A.A.T. and S.L.T. The Davidson County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions alleging that A.A.T. and S.L.T. were neglected and dependent juveniles on 12 January 2005. [R. pp. 89-97] The trial court adjudicated A.A.T. and S.L.T. neglected and dependent juveniles by order filed 10 August 2005, based on stipulations entered into between the parties. [R. pp. 111-14] DSS filed a petition to terminate Respondent\u2019s parental rights as to S.L.T. on 27 October 2006. [R. pp. 2-8]\nDSS filed a second petition on 14 December 2006, alleging that A.A.T. was a neglected and dependent juvenile. [R. pp. 366-69] The trial court adjudicated A.A.T. a neglected and dependent juvenile by order filed 12 February 2007, based on stipulations entered into between the parties. [R. pp. 399-401] DSS filed a petition to terminate Respondent\u2019s parental rights as to A.A.T. on 17 April 2007. [R. pp. 40-45] The trial court terminated Respondent\u2019s p\u00e1rental rights as to both juyeniles by order filed 27 June 2008. [R. pp. 506-35] Respondent appeals.\nRespondent\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because no summonses were issued to the juveniles as respondents. We disagree.\nUpon the filing of a petition to terminate a parent\u2019s rights to the custody of that parent\u2019s child, the trial court must issue a summons to the juvenile, naming that juvenile as a respondent. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-1106 (2008). Our Court held in In re C.T. & R.S., 182 N.C. App. 472, 474-75, 643 S.E.2d 23, 25 (2007), that the failure to issue a summons referencing the juvenile R.S. deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over R.S. Based on our Court\u2019s holding in In re C.T. & R.S., this Court has subsequently held that issuance of a summons to the juvenile is required to obtain subject matter jurisdiction in termination cases. See In re A.F.H-G, 189 N.C. App. 160, -, 657 S.E.2d 738, 739-40 (2008); In re I.D.G., 188 N.C. App. 629, \u2014, 655 S.E.2d 858, 859 (2008); In re K.A.D., 187 N.C. App. 502, -, 653 S.E.2d 427, 428-29 (2007). However, in In re S.D.J. our Court determined that\nif a summons is not properly issued naming the juvenile as a respondent in a proceeding to terminate parental rights to the juvenile, the trial court will retain subject matter jurisdiction over the termination proceeding where the caption of an issued summons refers to the juvenile by name and a designated representative of the juvenile certifies the juvenile was served with the petition.\nIn re S.D.J., 192 N.C. App. 478, -, 665 S.E.2d 818, 820 (2008) (citing In re J.A.P., I.M.P., 189 N.C. App. 683, -, 659 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2008)). Service accepted by a juvenile\u2019s guardian ad litem constitutes service to the juvenile. Id.; see also In re N.C.H., G.D.H., D.G.H., 192 N.C. App. 445, -, 665 S.E.2d 812, 813 (2008) (Stroud, J., dissenting).\nIn the case before us, it appears no summonses were issued to the juveniles as respondents. Nevertheless, the captions of the summonses state the names of the juveniles, and the guardian ad litem for the juveniles certified that she accepted service of the petitions on the juveniles\u2019 behalf. [R. pp. 17, 22, 32, 73] Therefore, in accordance with our Court\u2019s holdings in J.A.P, N.C.H. and S.D.J., we conclude the trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition to terminate Respondent\u2019s parental rights. Respondent\u2019s argument is without merit.\nAffirmed.\nJudge ELMORE concurs.\nJudge STROUD dissents with a separate opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McGEE, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "STROUD, Judge,\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent for the same reasons as discussed in my dissent in In re N.C.H., G.D.H., D.G.H., 192 N.C. App. 445, -, 665 S.E.2d 812, 813-18 (2008) (Stroud, J., dissenting).",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "STROUD, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Frye, III for Petitioner-Appellee Davidson County Department of Social Services.",
      "David A. Perez for Respondent-Appellant.",
      "Pamela Newell Williams for Guardian ad Litem."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.T. & A.A.T.\nNo. COA08-1223\n(Filed 20 January 2009)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 subject matter jurisdiction\u2014 summons not issued to juveniles as respondents \u2014 service accepted by guardian ad litem\nThe trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction to hear a petition to terminate parental rights where no summonses were issued to the juveniles as respondents, but the captions of the summonses stated the names of the juveniles, and the guardian ad litem for the juveniles certified that she accepted service of the petitions on the juveniles\u2019 behalf.\nJudge STROUD dissenting.\nAppeal by Respondent from orders entered 27 June 2008 by Judge Dale Graham in District Court, Davidson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 December 2008.\nCharles E. Frye, III for Petitioner-Appellee Davidson County Department of Social Services.\nDavid A. Perez for Respondent-Appellant.\nPamela Newell Williams for Guardian ad Litem."
  },
  "file_name": "0127-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 161
}
