In re K.U.-S.G.
208 N.C. App. 128
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Respondent-mother Sylvia G. appeals a trial court order terminating her parental rights to Paul, Dana, and Katie.
- Initial dependent/neglect proceedings began in Pennsylvania (Fayette County) in 2002, with adjudications and foster placement under FCCYS.
- Katie’s custody was initially with their grandmother under a safety plan; later FCCYS obtained temporary custody due to noncompliance.
- All three children were placed with respondent’s great aunt and uncle (Curtis and Sara H.) in Pennsylvania; proceedings for termination started in 2004, with reunification still the goal at times.
- Petitions to terminate were filed in June 2009; NC court ultimately terminated rights in March 2010, but record shows the Pennsylvania court retained or claimed jurisdiction.
- The North Carolina court vacated the termination order, holding lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the initial custody determinations were made by Pennsylvania and jurisdiction requirements were not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the NC court have jurisdiction under UCCJEA §201 to terminate rights? | G. contends initial custody was PA; NC lacks §201 jurisdiction to terminate. | G. argues NC may exercise jurisdiction after home-state contact and modifications. | NC court lacked jurisdiction under §201; termination order vacated. |
| Did NC have jurisdiction under UCCJEA §203 to modify a prior custody order? | G. asserts modification improper absent proper jurisdiction under §203. | G. contends NC could modify given home-state and continuing connections. | NC lacked §203 jurisdiction to modify Pennsylvania custody orders. |
| Was Pennsylvania's continuing/exclusive jurisdiction properly extinguished under §202? | G. argues PA remained exclusive jurisdiction; NC record did not show PA relinquishment. | G. asserts NC could assume jurisdiction if PA no longer harbors exclusive jurisdiction. | PA did not lose exclusive jurisdiction; no proper relinquishment shown. |
| Did home-state and convenience forum provisions apply to permit NC’s action? | G. maintains NC home state since 2007; PA not clearly relinquished. | G. contends NC could serve as more convenient forum; record silent on determination. | Not satisfied; NC did not qualify under §201 or §207 as more convenient forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.R.M., 165 N.C. App. 294 (N.C. App. 2004) (home-state and modification jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- J.W.S., 194 N.C. App. 439 (N.C. App. 2008) (initial custody determinations and jurisdictional focus under UCCJEA §201)
- In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (N.C. 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction and de novo review standard)
- In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. 34 (N.C. App. 2008) (UCCJEA §203 modification limits and custody jurisdiction)