834 S.E.2d 169
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- E.B. was born in 2016; the mother immediately relinquished custody to Rowan County DSS for adoption and identified the respondent as a possible father.
- Paternity was confirmed April 19, 2016; the child entered foster care and DSS oversaw placement.
- DSS conducted six Permanency Planning/Review Hearings (2016–Mar 2018) and entered six Permanency Planning Orders that imposed services/conditions on the father.
- No properly verified juvenile petition under the Juvenile Code was ever filed; DSS later filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights on April 10, 2018 (grounds: neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, willful abandonment).
- The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights on November 30, 2018. On appeal the Court of Appeals held the Permanency Planning Orders void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but affirmed termination based on willful abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSS) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent‑Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Permanency Planning Orders (subject‑matter jurisdiction) | DSS conceded no properly verified juvenile petition was filed, so the Permanency Planning Orders lacked jurisdictional basis. | Orders are void; they cannot be used to condition or later justify termination. | Orders were void for lack of a properly filed juvenile petition and are disregarded. |
| Trial court jurisdiction to decide termination and DSS’s standing to file termination petition | DSS had standing to file the termination petition because the child was in DSS custody by the mother’s relinquishment, so the court had jurisdiction over the termination proceeding. | Because earlier review process and orders were void, DSS cannot base termination on duties imposed by those orders. | Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the termination petition and DSS had standing; termination proceeding itself was properly before the court. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for willful abandonment (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B‑1111(a)(7)) | Father moved to California, failed to attend hearings, did not request visits during the relevant six‑month period, missed child‑support hearing, and did not initiate Skype contact until after the petition—showing willful abandonment. | Father argues actions do not show intent to abandon; he pursued relative placement and contends DSS restricted or controlled access. | Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported willful abandonment; court affirmed termination on that ground. |
| Reliance on other statutory grounds (neglect; failure to make reasonable progress) given void permanency orders | Trial court found those grounds as well. | Those grounds are intertwined with requirements from the void Permanency Planning Orders and lack an adjudicatory basis. | Court did not rely on those grounds to affirm because one valid ground (abandonment) was sufficient; it did not reach or need to sustain the other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (discusses necessity of a properly verified juvenile petition to invoke juvenile‑court jurisdiction)
- In re A.R.G., 361 N.C. 392 (juvenile abuse/neglect/dependency action is a creature of statute and is commenced by petition)
- In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343 (termination courts have exclusive subject‑matter jurisdiction over termination petitions for juveniles in DSS custody)
- In re R.T.W., 359 N.C. 539 (termination orders rest on their own merits; independent review of termination grounds)
- In re C.J.H., 240 N.C. App. 489 (findings must show parent’s actions are wholly inconsistent with desire to maintain custody to support abandonment)
- In re A.L., 245 N.C. App. 55 (relinquishment by a parent gives DSS standing to file a termination petition)
- In re S.R.G., 195 N.C. App. 79 (defining willful abandonment standard)
- In re McLemore, 139 N.C. App. 426 (parental withholding of presence/support can establish abandonment)