Sherrick v. Sherrick, 209 N.C. App. 166

DSS filed a petition alleging Mary was a neglected juvenile on 9 November 2005; plaintiffs were not parties at that time.
On 6 December 2005, the trial court adjudicated Mary as dependent due to defendants’ drug use and domestic violence.
On 22 November 2006, the court entered a review order awarding custody to Fred and Sheila Sherrick, and retaining jurisdiction for subsequent orders.
On 8 October 2008, the court issued a consent order purporting to initiate a civil action, granting temporary joint legal custody to four people and waiving civil filing fees.
On 7 August 2009, the court entered a custody order under a civil action caption, awarding sole legal and physical custody to defendants.
On 22 September 2009 and 23 October 2009, defendants moved for, and the court awarded, attorney’s fees to defendants; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the 7 Aug 2009 and 23 Oct 2009 orders	Sherricks contend jurisdiction was not properly transferred.	Civil custody procedures were properly invoked under Chapter 50.	No; orders vacated for lack of valid transfer/jurisdiction.
Whether the juvenile court properly terminated its jurisdiction under 7B-911 before a civil custody order	7B-911 termination occurred or was effectively accomplished.	Termination under 7B-911 was satisfied by the 8 Oct 2008 order.	Not satisfied; 8 Oct 2008 order failed to meet 7B-911(c)(2) requirements.
Effect of the 8 Oct 2008 order purporting to terminate juvenile jurisdiction and initiate civil custody	Order effectively transferred to civil court and ended juvenile jurisdiction.	Order attempted transfer but did not comply with statutory requirements.	Defective transfer; juvenile jurisdiction not properly terminated.

State v. Jernigan, 255 N.C. 732, 122 S.E.2d 711 (1961) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
Savani v. Savani, 102 N.C.App. 496, 403 S.E.2d 900 (1991) (need for substantially changed circumstances to modify custody)
In re A.S. & S.S., 182 N.C.App. 139, 641 S.E.2d 400 (2007) (one order can address both juvenile file and civil file if sufficient to support both aspects)