{
  "id": 4150326,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF J.E. and Q.D.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re J.E. & Q.D.",
  "decision_date": "2008-01-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 297A07",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "362 N.C. 168"
    }
  ],
  "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": "644 S.E.2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638348
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/644/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. App. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8202545
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/183/0217-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3780556318148278
    },
    "sha256": "385bd5065dd32e4a89c450860f26a8373b907e6f476f7149fa5b6e0e93d61feb",
    "simhash": "1:b899789220e5c078",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "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.E. and Q.D."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that court is instructed to reinstate the order of the trial court terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "North Carolina Guardian ad Litem Program, by Pamela Newell Williams, Appellate Coordinator, and Matt McKay, Attorney Advocate, for appellant Guardian ad Litem; and Mecklenburg County Attorney\u2019s Office, by Twyla H. George, for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.",
      "Betsy J. Wolfenden for respondent-appellee mother."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF J.E. and Q.D.\nNo. 297A07\n(Filed 25 January 2008)\nTermination of Parental Rights\u2014 guardian ad litem representation \u2014 termination hearing but not prior hearings\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals reversing an order terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights in her two children is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that an order terminating parental rights should be affirmed when both children were represented by a guardian ad litem at the termination hearing but were unrepresented during some prior hearings not on direct appeal to the Court of Appeals.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 183 N.C. App. 217, 644 S.E.2d 28 (2007), reversing an order entered on 19 December 2005 by Judge Regan A. Miller in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 December 2007.\nNorth Carolina Guardian ad Litem Program, by Pamela Newell Williams, Appellate Coordinator, and Matt McKay, Attorney Advocate, for appellant Guardian ad Litem; and Mecklenburg County Attorney\u2019s Office, by Twyla H. George, for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.\nBetsy J. Wolfenden for respondent-appellee mother."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 246,
  "last_page_order": 246
}