In re: A.L., 245 N.C. App. 55

Background

Newborn Arianna was taken into nonsecure custody in Dec 2011; mother relinquished her parental rights and Arianna tested positive for drugs at birth. Paternity later confirmed for Respondent-father.
DSS voluntarily dismissed the original juvenile petition after the mother’s relinquishment; district court entered a dismissal order on Sept 20, 2012.
DSS continued custody via the statutory relinquishment process; DHS held custody while the district court issued several custody review orders after the dismissal.
DSS filed a new petition to terminate Respondent-father’s parental rights on May 15, 2014; hearing held and the court terminated his rights on Feb 23, 2015, citing multiple grounds including failure to pay a reasonable portion of the child’s care.
On appeal Respondent-father argued (1) the court lacked jurisdiction for review orders after the 2012 dismissal and (2) insufficient evidence (independent of void review orders) supported termination.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner (DSS) Argument	Respondent Argument	Held
Whether dismissal on Sept 20, 2012 divested the court of jurisdiction over subsequent custody review orders	DSS maintained custody via mother’s statutory relinquishment; later filing of termination petition re‑initiated a new action	Court lost subject‑matter jurisdiction after dismissal and any review orders during the gap were void	Court: dismissal did divest jurisdiction over interim review orders, but DSS re‑acquired jurisdiction when it filed a new termination petition and had standing via the mother’s relinquishment
Whether DSS had standing and the court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear the termination petition filed May 15, 2014	DSS had standing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B‑1103(a)(4) because mother surrendered child for adoption; new summons initiated a new action	Respondent contended DSS lacked standing because prior proceedings were dismissed	Held: DSS had standing via the relinquishment and the new petition/summons re‑established jurisdiction
Whether evidence independent of void review orders supported termination for willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care (N.C.G.S. § 7B‑1111(a)(3))	DSS relied on child support orders, enforcement history, Respondent’s employment and sporadic payments to show ability to pay yet willful nonpayment	Respondent contested sufficiency of evidence, arguing reliance on void review orders tainted the case	Held: Affirmed—clear, cogent, convincing evidence (child support orders, payments history, findings of disposable income) supported termination under (a)(3)
Whether the court’s finding that Arianna had been adjudicated dependent was supported by evidence	DSS implicitly treated juvenile as previously involved in juvenile proceedings	Respondent argued the original petition was dismissed and no dependency adjudication occurred	Held: Finding that Arianna had been adjudicated dependent was erroneous but harmless because termination was properly supported on another ground

Key Cases Cited

In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (N.C. 2006) (subject‑matter jurisdiction in juvenile cases is established by filing a verified petition; void review orders where jurisdiction lacking)
In re O.S., 175 N.C. App. 745 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (dismissal of juvenile petition ends court’s jurisdiction)
In re S.F., 190 N.C. App. 779 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes new termination petition with summons from a motion to terminate in an ongoing case)
In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. 34 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (DSS must lawfully have custody to have standing to file termination petition)
In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (only one statutory ground is necessary to support termination)
In re Oghenekevebe, 123 N.C. App. 434 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (appellate review focuses on whether findings are supported by clear, cogent, convincing evidence)
In re Clark, 151 N.C. App. 286 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (parent’s ability to pay controls what is a "reasonable portion" for § 7B‑1111(a)(3))
In re Becker, 111 N.C. App. 85 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (voluntary support agreement or enforcement orders can demonstrate ability to pay)
In re Pierce, 67 N.C. App. 257 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984) (only one statutory ground required to terminate parental rights)