In re S.E., 373 N.C. 360

In June 2016 Burke County DSS obtained nonsecure custody of four children after reports of repeated physical abuse and domestic violence; one child (Shanna) disclosed repeated sexual abuse by the children's father, Jerry A.
Respondent-mother initially denied knowledge but later admitted Shanna had told her; mother was convicted of intentional child abuse in Nov. 2016 and placed on probation; Jerry A. was convicted of first-degree statutory rape.
The court adjudicated the children abused, neglected, and dependent; dispositional orders found aggravated circumstances and limited reunification/visitation.
Multiple permanency hearings and interstate home studies (ICPC) occurred; relatives and Vera’s father were later found unsuitable and adoption became primary plan for three children.
DSS filed to terminate parental rights in Sept. 2018 alleging multiple statutory grounds, including willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of foster-care costs (N.C.G.S. §7B-1111(a)(3)).
The trial court terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights (March 2019). On appeal she challenged (1) subject-matter jurisdiction over Sara under the UCCJEA and (2) whether her failure to pay was willful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Sara under the UCCJEA	DSS: North Carolina was Sara’s "home state" (she lived in NC for 6 months); mother had stipulated Oklahoma CPS matter was closed, so no continuing Oklahoma jurisdiction	Mother: A prior Oklahoma custody/ CPS removal existed and the court failed to follow UCCJEA procedures (should have contacted Oklahoma)	Court: Jurisdiction proper. Mother failed to carry burden to show lack of jurisdiction; findings and stipulation supported NC home-state jurisdiction.
Whether respondent willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care under N.C.G.S. §7B-1111(a)(3)	DSS: Mother was employed (~$600–$700/wk), paid nothing during the six months before petition; parents have inherent duty to support; ignorance is not a defense	Mother: She did not know she could or had to pay or how to do so; thus failure was not willful	Court: Held failure was willful. Lack of notice or court order not a defense; findings (ability to pay and zero payments) supported termination on §7B-1111(a)(3).

In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343 (2009) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable and may be raised at any time)
In re N.T., 368 N.C. 705 (2016) (prima facie presumption of jurisdiction where a court of general jurisdiction has acted)
Cheape v. Town of Chapel Hill, 320 N.C. 549 (1987) (presumption of rightful jurisdiction where a court has acted)
Williamson v. Spivey, 224 N.C. 311 (1944) (burden on party asserting lack of jurisdiction)
In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984) (definition of "cost of care" as foster-care costs)
In re Clark, 303 N.C. 592 (1981) (parent must pay a fair, equitable portion of foster-care cost based on ability)
In re A.U.D., 832 S.E.2d 698 (2019) (adjudicatory / dispositional two-stage burden in termination proceedings)
In re T.D.P., 164 N.C. App. 287 (2004) (ignorance of obligation to pay support is not a defense)