Opinion of the Court
truancy in that he “was unlawfully absent” from high school, having accrued “a total
of 58 absences[,] [i]n violation of 7B-1501(27)(a)[.]” Brian admitted to truancy.
¶3 The trial court entered an order adjudicating Brian as undisciplined on
15 April 2021 (the “adjudication order”). The adjudication order also provided that
the matter would be continued for disposition until 7 June 2021 “under the following
conditions: . . . contempt warning given in open court see attached AOC-J-209[.]”
¶4 The trial court filed an additional, separate order on the same day (the “second
order”). In the second order, the trial court expressly required Brian to “attend school
each and every day when it is in session and have no unexcused absences, tardies[,]
or suspensions from school”; to “complete all classroom and homework assignments
as issued by school officials”; to “sign up for in person school and start attending
[M]onday 4/18/2021”; and to “log on for virtual school for 4/16/2021[.]” The second
order also provided that Brian “verbally acknowledged [he] understand[s] that
violation of the above conditions may result in him . . . being held in Contempt.”
¶5 Following a hearing held on 7 June 2021, the trial court entered a juvenile
disposition order on 8 June 2021 (the “disposition order”). The disposition order
placed Brian under protective supervision of a court counselor for three months and
required him to “[r]emain on good behavior and not violate any laws[,]” “[a]ttend
school regularly[,]” “[m]aintain passing grades in at least 4 courses[,]” and “[r]eport
to a court counselor as often as required by the court counselor.” The disposition
order also provided: “contempt warning order dated 04/15/2021 still remains.”
¶6 On 26 August 2021, “a Motion for Review was filed alleging [Brian] [had]
violated the conditions of protective supervision by ‘refusing to attend school’ on
August 23rd, August 25th, and August 26th 2021.” On 27 August 2021, a juvenile
petition was filed alleging that Brian was delinquent in that he “did violate a
contempt warning set forth by District Court on June 7, 2021, instructing that the
‘juvenile will attend school each and every day as outlined by the school’. The juvenile
has accumulated 3 unexcused absences since the court date. In violation of 5A-12(b)
Indirect Contempt[.]” The petitioned also alleged the offense in question was in
violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-31(c).
¶7 Brian filed a motion to dismiss on 18 October 2021, arguing that “[t]he current
incarnation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2505” read together with § 7B-2503 did not allow
the trial court to pursue delinquency actions following an adjudication of
undisciplined, and emphasizing the General Assembly’s distinction between
“children adjudicated undisciplined versus children adjudicated delinquent[.]” Thus,
Brian argued the juvenile delinquency petition filed against him violated his due
process and statutory rights.
¶8 The matter came on for adjudication, motion for review, and violation of
protective supervision hearing on 18 October 2021 in Gaston County District Court,
Judge Hoyle presiding. After hearing Brian’s counsel’s arguments to dismiss the
delinquency petition and after reading the written motion to dismiss, the trial court
denied the motion. Brian then admitted to indirect contempt and to violating his
protective supervision.
¶9 The trial court ordered that Brian be placed on “probationary supervision of a
court counselor for six months.” The trial court also ordered, among other things,
that Brian “attend school regularly, maintain passing grades in at least four
courses, . . . meet with the court counselor to figure out how to do that, and the school
representative[,] . . . [s]ubmit to random drug tests[,]” and abide by a 9:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m. curfew. Brian filed notice of appeal on the same day.
II. Discussion
¶ 10 On appeal, Brian argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss, and in doing so violated N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-2503 and 7B-2505, as well as
Brian’s due process rights. Specifically, Brian argues that “the State’s procedure of
seeking a delinquency adjudication for contempt in response to noncompliance with
protective supervision or a court order that arises out of an undisciplined adjudication
goes against what is contemplated by and authorized by dispositional provisions of
Section 7B.” “We review a trial court’s denial of a [juvenile’s] motion to dismiss de
novo.” In re S.M.S., 196 N.C. App. 170, 171, 675 S.E.2d 44, 45 (2009) (citation
omitted).
¶ 11 “When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room
for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning.”
Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 322 N.C. 271, 276, 367 S.E.2d
655, 658 (1988) (citations omitted). Our General Statutes provide that a fifteen-year-
old juvenile is delinquent if he “commits indirect contempt . . . as defined in G.S. 5A-
31.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1501(7)(a) (2021). The behavior of a juvenile who engages
in “[w]illful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful
process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution” constitutes contempt. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 5A-31(a)(3) (2021). Such contempt is indirect when it is exercised outside
of the presence of a court. Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-31(b) with § 5A-31(c).
“Indirect contempt by a juvenile may be adjudged and sanctioned only pursuant to
the procedures in Subchapter II of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 5A-33 (2021).
¶ 12 Brian’s argument on appeal relies on N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-2503 and 7B-2505,
addressing, respectively, dispositional alternatives for undisciplined juveniles and
violation of protective supervisions by undisciplined juveniles. Though these statutes
may have controlled the initial juvenile petition alleging that Brian was
undisciplined, they ceased to control the moment Brian acted in violation of the trial
court’s disposition order requiring him to attend school regularly and do not take into
consideration the trial court’s multiple contempt warnings. See In re Walker, 282
N.C. 28, 38, 191 S.E.2d 702, 709 (1972) (“The fact that a child initially has been found
to be undisciplined and placed on probation is merely incidental to a later petition
and motion alleging delinquency based on violation of the terms of probation.”).
¶ 13 Under a plain reading of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-1501 and 5A-31, it is clear that
fifteen-year-old Brian committed indirect contempt when he violated his disposition
order by failing to attend school regularly, an action which was done outside of the
direct presence of the trial court. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 5A-31, 7B-1501. Under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 5A-33, it was proper for the trial court to find Brian delinquent as a result
of such contempt, as a juvenile’s indirect contempt may be “adjudged and sanctioned
only pursuant to the procedures in Subchapter II of Chapter 7B of the General
Statutes[,]” which contains N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1501. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-33
(emphasis added). Furthermore, Brian was put on notice on multiple occasions—
specifically, in the adjudication order, the second order, and the disposition order—
that such failure on his part would result in his being held in contempt.
¶ 14 Accordingly, the trial court acted in accordance with controlling legislature and
did not err by denying Brian’s motion to dismiss.
III. Conclusion
¶ 15 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err by
denying Brian’s motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
Chief Judge STROUD and Judge COLLINS concur.