{
  "id": 4149944,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., and D.T.F., minor children",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., & D.T.F.",
  "decision_date": "2008-01-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 366A07",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "362 N.C. 167"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "646 S.E.2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638863
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/646/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N.C. App. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8186250
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/184/0474-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 1822,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0703588301410917e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5596067569962573
    },
    "sha256": "c910dec6cb7d9dd51bcf24d711aea436b088c0297b284d3c76f72a4d2a15b937",
    "simhash": "1:ac08069e34b3246e",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:47:03.529976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., and D.T.F., minor children"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of respondent\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mecklenburg County Attorney\u2019s Office, by J. Edward Yeager, Jr. and Tyrone C. Wade, for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.",
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Sarah A. Motley, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.",
      "Charlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellee mother."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M., and D.T.F., minor children\nNo. 366A07\n(Filed 25 January 2008)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 failure to conduct hearing within 90 days \u2014 absence of prejudice\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case reversing an order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights because the termination hearing was not held within the 90-day period prescribed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-1109 is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that respondent failed to show that she was prejudiced by the delay where she merely asserted that she was deprived of the right to visit with the children, she made no assertion that had she been allowed visitation she would have been able to demonstrate that she had rectified her substance abuse and domestic violence issues which led to the removal of the children, and the delay gave the respondent additional time to rectify those issues but she failed to take advantage of this opportunity.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 184 N.C. App. 474, 646 S.E.2d 631 (2007), reversing an order signed on 18 April 2006 by Judge Louis A. Trosch, Jr. in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 2007.\nMecklenburg County Attorney\u2019s Office, by J. Edward Yeager, Jr. and Tyrone C. Wade, for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Sarah A. Motley, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.\nCharlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellee mother."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 245
}