In re L.T., 374 N.C. 567

Background:

Mecklenburg County DSS filed a neglect/dependency petition for Laurie on March 17, 2017; DSS alleged Laurie lived with her father in Charlotte and was at substantial risk.
A valid Delaware custody order giving sole custody to respondent-father existed when the petition was filed.
On June 12, 2017 the trial court continued the case after attorneys reported Laurie had not lived in NC for six months and a Delaware order appeared to control; the court sought to investigate UCCJEA jurisdiction.
On September 21, 2017 the trial court adjudicated Laurie neglected and dependent, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Laurie and father had lived in Charlotte since September 2016 (over six months before the petition).
DSS moved to terminate father’s parental rights on September 19, 2018; the trial court terminated rights on March 22, 2019 under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2) and found termination in Laurie’s best interests.
Father appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify the Delaware custody order; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding North Carolina had modification jurisdiction.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether the trial court had UCCJEA authority to modify the Delaware custody order under N.C.G.S. § 50A-203	NC had initial-custody jurisdiction because it was the child’s home state and the parties no longer lived in Delaware	Trial court lacked initial-custody jurisdiction under § 50A-201(a); thus it could not modify the Delaware order	Held: NC had jurisdiction under § 50A-203 because the child had been domiciled in NC for over six months before the petition, satisfying home-state and residency prerequisites
Whether the trial court’s earlier continuance finding (that the child had not lived in NC six months) precluded later jurisdictional findings	Later adjudication/disposition findings and testimony established the required six-month residency	The earlier continuance finding proved that NC was not the home state at commencement	Held: The preliminary continuance finding was based on incomplete info and was superseded by later clear-and-convincing findings and testimony showing residency since Sept 2016
Whether the court was required to make specific UCCJEA findings on the record for subject-matter jurisdiction	Specific phrasing not required; the record must reflect that UCCJEA prerequisites were met	Lack of explicit statutory-language findings renders proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction	Held: Court need not make formulaic UCCJEA findings, but the record must demonstrate the Act’s prerequisites; here the record was sufficient to confer jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

In re K.J.L., 677 S.E.2d 835 (N.C. 2009) (subject-matter jurisdiction in juvenile matters is never waivable)
In re S.E., 838 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. 2020) (UCCJEA compliance is required for juvenile and termination proceedings)
In re T.J.D.W., 642 S.E.2d 471 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court need not make specific UCCJEA findings, but the record must show prerequisites were satisfied)