374 N.C. 532
N.C.2020Background:
- Twin girls (born Aug. 2004 in South Carolina) were later living in Davidson County, North Carolina, after their mother moved there.
- Father, a South Carolina resident, was incarcerated beginning in 2007 and had limited contact with the children; DSS became involved in 2011 and children were placed in DSS custody after neglect/dependency petitions in May 2016.
- Reunification efforts ended May 2017; DSS filed petitions to terminate parental rights in November 2017.
- Father moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing he lacked minimum contacts with North Carolina; the trial court denied dismissal, found father provided no substantial financial assistance or care and failed to maintain contact, and terminated his parental rights.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review to decide whether due process requires minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires nonresident parents to have minimum contacts with North Carolina before the State may terminate parental rights | DSS: No—status exception allows the child’s home state to adjudicate parental status without minimum contacts | Father: Yes—Int’l Shoe and related due-process principles require minimum contacts before exercising personal jurisdiction over nonresidents | Court: Held that the status exception applies to termination proceedings; due process does not require minimum contacts for such cases; affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (discusses minimum contacts and due-process limits on jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum-contacts standard)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (recognizes "status" cases as an exception to traditional personal-jurisdiction analysis)
- May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (custody case addressing limits of status-based jurisdiction)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (parental rights arise from demonstrated commitment to parental responsibilities)
- Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474 (N.C. two-step test: statutory authorization then minimum contacts)
- In re Trueman, 99 N.C. App. 579 (Court of Appeals required minimum contacts in in-wedlock custody/termination cases)
- In re Finnican, 104 N.C. App. 157 (similar precedent requiring minimum contacts; overruled herein)
- In re Dixon, 112 N.C. App. 248 (Court of Appeals held minimum contacts not required for out-of-wedlock fathers who failed to assume parental responsibilities)
- In re R.W., 39 A.3d 682 (Vt. case applying status exception to termination proceedings)