Junious Pernell Bartlett v. City of Newport News Department of Human Services
67 Va. App. 140
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS filed juvenile petitions (emergency removal, permanency planning, and termination of parental rights) in the JDR court for two children; several petitions were signed by nonattorney DHS employees and filed via the court intake officer.
- JDR court entered emergency removal orders, dispositional and permanency planning orders, and later termination of parental rights orders following hearings.
- Appellants (parents) appealed the permanency planning and termination orders to the circuit court and moved to dismiss, arguing the petitions were void because nonlawyers signed them (unauthorized practice of law), so the courts lacked active jurisdiction.
- The circuit court denied the motions and affirmed the JDR orders; appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory history (including 2008 and 2016 amendments) and an Attorney General opinion, and concluded the General Assembly intended to allow designated nonattorney local social services employees to complete, sign, and file specified Supreme Court form petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether form juvenile/delinquency petitions signed and filed by nonattorney local DSS/DHS employees constitute unauthorized practice of law such that JDR and circuit courts lacked active jurisdiction | Appellants: petitions signed by nonlawyers are void under the nullity rule and thus deprived courts of jurisdiction | DHS/State: statutory framework, AG opinion, and legislative amendments permit designated nonattorney employees to sign and file approved form petitions on behalf of local departments | Court: petitions were valid; nonattorney completion/signature of approved form petitions does not constitute unauthorized practice and does not divest the courts of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119 (de novo review standard for legal questions on appeal)
- Beck v. Shelton, 267 Va. 482 (2004) (Attorney General opinions entitled to due consideration)
- Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 157 (1983) (legislative acquiescence inferred from lack of corrective amendment)
- Aguilera v. Christian, 280 Va. 486 (2010) (discussion of the nullity rule and statutory exceptions under Code § 16.1-260)
- Patterson v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 488 (2013) (statutes must be interpreted consistent with legislature’s clear intent)
- Saunders v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 139 (2010) (principle against strained statutory interpretations)