In re A.S.M.R., 375 N.C. 539

DSS became involved after a June 2017 domestic-violence incident; two children (born Dec. 2015 and Dec. 2016) were the subjects of the case.
DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging neglect and obtained nonsecure custody on 1 Sept. 2017.
On 25 Oct. 2017 respondents waived an evidentiary hearing, stipulated to admission of the petition, and the court entered an adjudication order (2 Nov. 2017) finding the children neglected; a disposition order (20 Nov. 2017) placed custody with DSS.
After permanency reviews the permanency plan was changed to adoption (July 2018). DSS filed motions to terminate parental rights on 23 Oct. 2018.
A termination hearing was held and the trial court entered an order terminating both parents’ rights on 13 June 2019. Respondents appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered two issues: (1) whether alleged non-jurisdictional defects in the unappealed adjudication deprived DSS of standing to seek termination; and (2) whether omission of explicit UCCJEA findings rendered the adjudication void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non-jurisdictional defects in an unappealed adjudication strip DSS of standing to seek termination	DSS: Respondents failed to appeal the adjudication; collateral attack is barred, so DSS has standing.	Respondents: Adjudication contained evidentiary/finding defects that invalidated DSS’s custody authority, so DSS lacked standing to move for termination.	Court: Respondents abandoned the adjudication by not appealing; non-jurisdictional errors cannot be collaterally litigated in the termination appeal; DSS had standing.
Whether failure to make explicit UCCJEA findings renders the adjudication void	DSS: Record shows children lived in NC for requisite period; jurisdiction exists even without explicit findings.	Respondents: Adjudication lacked UCCJEA findings establishing NC as home state, so it was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.	Court: Court presumes proper jurisdiction unless challenged; explicit UCCJEA findings not required where the record unambiguously shows NC was the home state; jurisdiction existed.

In re Wheeler, 87 N.C. App. 189, 360 S.E.2d 458 (1987) (adjudication errors not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked in later termination proceeding)
In re O.C., 171 N.C. App. 457, 615 S.E.2d 391 (2005) (errors in prior adjudication that do not affect later order’s validity are not a basis to reverse termination)
In re R.T.W., 359 N.C. 539, 614 S.E.2d 489 (2005) (termination proceedings are separate and rest on their own merits)
In re L.T., 374 N.C. 567, 843 S.E.2d 199 (2020) (explicit UCCJEA findings not required if record shows jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied)
In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. 34, 662 S.E.2d 24 (2008) (standing requires lawful custody by DSS)
Willowmere Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Charlotte, 370 N.C. 553, 809 S.E.2d 558 (2018) (standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction)