Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Issuance <strong>of</strong> Summons to Child<br />
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
1. Subject m<strong>at</strong>ter jurisdiction <strong>at</strong>taches when a summons is issued.<br />
2. Defects or irregularities in the summons or in service <strong>of</strong> process rel<strong>at</strong>e to personal, not subject<br />
m<strong>at</strong>ter, jurisdiction and can be waived.<br />
In re J.T., ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2/6/09), reversing In re J.T., ___ N.C. App. ___, 657 S.E.2d<br />
692 (2008).<br />
http://www.aoc.st<strong>at</strong>e.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2009/pdf/155-08-1.pdf<br />
Facts: In an action to termin<strong>at</strong>e parental rights, a summons was issued, but it did not name the child as a<br />
respondent and the summons was not served on the child’s guardian ad litem or <strong>at</strong>torney advoc<strong>at</strong>e. Both<br />
the GAL and <strong>at</strong>torney advoc<strong>at</strong>e particip<strong>at</strong>ed fully in the hearing, however, without raising any objection<br />
to the summons or service <strong>of</strong> process. The court <strong>of</strong> appeals reversed the order termin<strong>at</strong>ing parental rights,<br />
holding th<strong>at</strong> the failure to name the child as a respondent in the summons deprived the trial court <strong>of</strong><br />
subject m<strong>at</strong>ter jurisdiction.<br />
Held: Reversed.<br />
The Supreme Court held th<strong>at</strong><br />
1. the trial court obtained subject m<strong>at</strong>ter jurisdiction when a summons was issued, and any problem with<br />
the summons or service <strong>of</strong> process rel<strong>at</strong>ed only to personal jurisdiction;<br />
2. the <strong>at</strong>torney advoc<strong>at</strong>e and GAL waived any issue with respect to defects or irregularities in process or<br />
service <strong>of</strong> process by particip<strong>at</strong>ing in the proceeding.<br />
On 2/6/09 the Supreme Court also granted DSS’s petition for discretionary review in In re I.D.G., ___<br />
N.C. App. ___, 655 S.E.2d 858 (2008), for the limited purpose <strong>of</strong> remanding to the court <strong>of</strong> appeals for<br />
reconsider<strong>at</strong>ion in light <strong>of</strong> J.T. (above). (Court <strong>of</strong> appeals had held th<strong>at</strong> failure to issue summons to the<br />
child when a petition to termin<strong>at</strong>e parental rights was filed deprived trial court <strong>of</strong> subject m<strong>at</strong>ter<br />
jurisdiction.)<br />
The Supreme Court’s holding in J.T. would affect the court’s reasoning, but not its conclusion, in the<br />
following recent cases:<br />
• In re S.L.T., ___ N.C. App. ___, 670 S.E.2d 922 (1/20/09) (holding th<strong>at</strong> juvenile need not be named<br />
as respondent if the juvenile is named in the caption <strong>of</strong> the summons and the guardian ad litem<br />
certifies th<strong>at</strong> the juvenile was served).<br />
• In re S.N., ___ N.C. App. ___, 669 S.E.2d 55 (12/2/08) (holding th<strong>at</strong> trial court had subject m<strong>at</strong>ter<br />
jurisdiction where the summons named the child in the caption; named the child’s guardian ad litem,<br />
but not the child, as a respondent; and was served with the petition on the child’s guardian ad litem).<br />
• In re N.C.H., ___ N.C. App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 812 (9/2/08) (appeal pending); and<br />
In re S.D.J., ___ N.C. App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 818 (9/2/08)<br />
(both holding th<strong>at</strong> trial court had subject m<strong>at</strong>ter jurisdiction when juveniles were named in the caption<br />
<strong>of</strong> the summonses and the juveniles’ represent<strong>at</strong>ives certified th<strong>at</strong> the juveniles were served).<br />
The Supreme Court’s holding in J.T. effectively overrules one holding in the following recent decision:<br />
• In re K.J.L., ___ N.C. App. ___, 670 S.E.2d 269 (12/16/08) (trial court did not have subject m<strong>at</strong>ter<br />
jurisdiction because no summons was issued to the child or served on the child’s guardian ad litem).<br />
However, see the summary below for the court’s other holding, which may not be affected by J.T.<br />
7