Arete N. Rudolph v. City of Newport News Department of Human Services
1913151
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- DHS filed emergency removal petitions and later permanency and termination petitions for two children; nonattorney DHS employees (social workers) signed standardized form petitions and filed them with the JDR court.
- JDR court entered emergency removal, dispositional, foster-care review, permanency planning (goal adoption), and ultimately termination-of-parental-rights orders after hearings.
- Appellants (parents Rudolph and Bartlett) appealed the permanency and termination orders to the circuit court and moved to dismiss, arguing the pleadings were void because nonlawyers signed them (unauthorized practice of law), so the courts lacked active jurisdiction.
- The circuit court denied the motions and affirmed the JDR orders; appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which consolidated the matters.
- The Court of Appeals examined prior Attorney General guidance and several statutes (including amendments in 2008 and 2016) stating that designated nonattorney employees of local departments of social services may complete, sign, and file specified Supreme Court-approved form petitions.
- The Court concluded those form petitions signed by DHS nonattorney employees were valid and did not constitute unauthorized practice of law, so lower courts had active jurisdiction; judgments affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether form petitions signed/filed by nonattorney DHS employees constitute unauthorized practice of law and render pleadings void | Rudolph/Bartlett: petitions are null because only licensed attorneys may sign pleadings; void filings deprive courts of active jurisdiction | DHS: statutes, AG opinion, and legislative amendments allow designated nonattorney DSS employees to complete/sign/file specified Supreme Court–approved juvenile forms | Court: such form petitions are valid; not unauthorized practice; lower courts retained active jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Beck v. Shelton, 267 Va. 482 (Va. 2004) (Attorney General opinions entitled to due consideration)
- Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157 (Va. 1983) (legislative acquiescence to Attorney General interpretation)
- Aguilera v. Christian, 280 Va. 486 (Va. 2010) (discussing nullity rule and statutory exceptions)
- Patterson v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 488 (Va. Ct. App.) (courts must not construe statutes contrary to legislative intent)
- Saunders v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 139 (Va. Ct. App.) (same)