In re N.C.H.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In re N.C.H.

678 S.E.2d 658, 363 N.C. 116, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 233

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

DocketNo. 463A08

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 678 S.E.2d 658 (In re N.C.H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re N.C.H., 678 S.E.2d 658, 363 N.C. 116, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 233 (N.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The result reached by the Court of Appeals is affirmed. However, in light of our opinion in In re J.T. (I), 363 N.C. 1, 672 S.E.2d 17 (2009), the following language from the Court of Appeals’ opinion is specifically disavowed: “[S]ervice [of the summons] on the guardian ad litem constitutes service on the juvenile, which is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction when combined with naming the juvenile in the caption of the summons.” In re N.C.H., G.D.H., D.G.H., 192 N.C. App. 445, 446, 665 S.E.2d 812, 813 (2008) (citing In re J.A.P., I.M.P., 189 N.C. App. 683, 686-87, 659 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2008)). It is true in termination of parental rights cases that service of the summons on the juvenile is accomplished through the juvenile’s guardian ad litem “if one has been appointed.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-1106(a) (2007). We reject the notion, though, that service of the summons on any particular party is necessary to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. In re J.T. (I), 363 N.C. at 4, 672 S.E.2d at 19 (“[T]he trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked upon the issuance of a summons.” (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The result reached by the Court of Appeals is affirmed. However, in light of our opinion in In re J.T. (I), 363 N.C. 1, 672 S.E.2d 17 (2009), the following language from the Court of Appeals’ opinion is specifically disavowed: “[S]ervice [of the summons] on the guardian ad litem constitutes service on the juvenile, which is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction when combined with naming the juvenile in the caption of the summons.” In re N.C.H., G.D.H., D.G.H., 192 N.C. App. 445, 446, 665 S.E.2d 812, 813 (2008) (citing In re J.A.P., I.M.P., 189 N.C. App. 683, 686-87, 659 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2008)). It is true in termination of parental rights cases that service of the summons on the juvenile is accomplished through the juvenile’s guardian ad litem “if one has been appointed.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-1106(a) (2007). We reject the notion, though, that service of the summons on any particular party is necessary to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. In re J.T. (I), 363 N.C. at 4, 672 S.E.2d at 19 (“[T]he trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked upon the issuance of a summons.” (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 S.E.2d 658, 363 N.C. 116, 2009 N.C. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nch-nc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack