Domestic Relations – Termination of Parental Rights – N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104

The trial court erred by dismissing Mother’s termination petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

We vacated and remanded for a determination of whether Mother’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104 prejudiced Father.

Mother appealed from an order dismissing her petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to her minor child, Aaron. Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1104, a petition for termination of parental rights must, “with respect to [unknown] facts[,] . . . state . . . [t]he name of the juvenile as it appears on the juvenile’s birth certificate . . . .” Mother’s termination petition listed Aaron’s first and last name as listed on his birth certificate but used only a middle initial to indicate his middle name. Mother’s termination petition does not indicate whether the listed name matched Aaron’s birth certificate or identify anyone who might otherwise know that information. Mother’s failure to attach the birth certificate to the petition prevented the trial court from legally verifying Aaron’s identity in the record. Although Mother claims that the termination petition contains all the information that “would have appeared on the birth certificate,” the trial court concluded that no additional information was included that could enable it to verify Aaron’s name. Because Mother’s counsel could not locate the juvenile’s birth certificate despite the hour-long recess, the termination petition prima facie does not comply with § 7B-1104(1). Thus, we turned to whether that noncompliance bars this Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

Father’s responsive pleadings in this case cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction on this Court or otherwise waive its absence but are “immaterial.” He inferred a general rule from caselaw relating to § 7B-1104 that allows for technical noncompliance if it does not prejudice a party upon consideration of the whole record. In other words, a party who alleges a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction will not be found to be prejudiced if any information required under the statute can still be found within the record as a whole. Neither the petition itself nor the larger record provides enough identifying information to verify Aaron’s full name. As noted, the petition gives Aaron’s first name, last name, and birthdate, but it offers no supporting documentation to confirm that information and also fails to provide a middle name. Not only is the birth certificate absent, but the petition does not even allege that the stated name matches the birth certificate. Based on the Mother’s petition and the Father’s answer, it is undisputed that Mother and Father agree on the first name, middle initial, last name, and date of birth of Aaron. It is also undisputed that Aaron was born in and currently lives in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina with Mother. Father did not show prejudice from the failure to include Aaron’s middle name as it appears on the birth certificate in Mother’s petition and does not allege that the child has not properly been identified. Additionally, the trial court failed to find whether Mother’s noncompliance prejudiced him. It is clear that our Supreme Court jurisprudence is moving away depriving trial courts of subject matter jurisdiction based on technical noncompliance in pleadings. We have found no case law determining that failure to include a middle name deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a juvenile. Therefore, we extended that jurisprudence to this case and remanded for a determination whether Mother’s statutory noncompliance prejudiced Father in these proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

In the Matter of A.J.B. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-071-25, 17 pp.) (Tom Murry, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court (C. Renee Little, J.) Weaver, Bennett & Bland, PA, by William G. Whittaker and David B. Sherman, Jr., for Plaintiff–Appellant Mother; BJK Legal, by Benjamin J. Kull, for Defendant–Appellee Father; Bollinger Law Firm, by Marjory J. Timothy, for Guardian ad litem–Appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals