Title: Matter of Wharton

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

290 S.E.2d 688 (1982) In the Matter of Phillip WHARTON, Juvenile. No. 9PA82. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 4, 1982. *690 Margaret A. Dudley, Deputy Guilford County Atty., Greensboro, for Guilford County and Guilford County Department of Social Services. Booth, Harrington, Johns & Campbell by A. Frank Johns, Greensboro, for Phillip Wharton, Juvenile. BRITT, Justice. First, we address the procedural aspects of this case. Relying on our decision in In Re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 272 S.E.2d 861 (1981), the Court of Appeals properly held that Guilford County had no right to appeal from the order dated 23 October 1980 and filed 3 November 1980. We reaffirm our decision in Brownlee with respect to a county's right to appeal from orders entered in a juvenile proceeding. Nevertheless, as we said in Brownlee, this court is authorized to issue "any remedial writs necessary to give it general supervision and control over the proceedings of the other courts" of the state. North Carolina Constitution, Article IV, Section 12(1). We also said in Brownlee that 301 N.C. at 548. Due to the far reaching effect of Judge Pfaff's orders on Guilford County and the director of its Department of Social Services, we consider this case to be of sufficient importance for us to invoke our supervisory authority. We have therefore allowed Guilford County's petition for discretionary review. We now treat the papers filed in this court on behalf of Guilford County and Frank Wilson as a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the orders of the trial court, and as a motion to bypass the Court of Appeals, and allow the petition and motion. Before passing upon the validity of the 3 November 1980 order adjudging Frank Wilson, Director of the Department of Social Services for Guilford County, in contempt of court, we must consider the validity of the portion of the trial court's order entered 27 August 1980 upon which the 3 November 1980 order was predicated. In In Re Smith, 301 N.C. 621, 272 S.E.2d 834 (1981), Justice Huskins, speaking for this court, said: 301 N.C. at 633. The key provision of the 27 August 1980 order which is the basis for the trial court adjudging Mr. Wilson to be in contempt provides as follows: We hold that the trial court exceeded its authority in entering the quoted provision of the 27 August 1980 order. Hence, the 3 November 1980 order adjudging Wilson in contempt of court is invalid and must be vacated. In its dispositional order of 27 August 1980 the trial court found that the juvenile was incompetent to stand trial, and that G.S. 7A-646 and 647 provided for dispositional alternatives for a juvenile who had been found to be mentally ill or mentally retarded and in need of medical, surgical, psychiatric, psychological or other treatment. It is clear that the court relied on those statutes for its authority to enter the order in question. G.S. 7A-646 provides: G.S. 7A-647 provides: We find nothing in the quoted statutes which authorizes the district court to require a County Department of Social Services, either by itself or in conjunction with another agency, to "implement the creation of a foster home to be found by the County" with appropriate staff, wherein a juvenile and others like him might be "permanently domiciled for program treatment and delivery of services." In addition to the requirements placed on the Director of Social Services, the order also appears to require the county to "find" a suitable house in which the juvenile and the treatment staff could be "permanently domiciled." We find no authority for this action. It is possible that the trial judge felt that the first sentence of G.S. 7A-646 provided him with the authority to enter the challenged portion of the order in question. This sentence provides that "[t]he purpose of dispositions in juvenile actions is to design an appropriate plan to meet the needs of the juvenile and to achieve the objectives of the State in exercising jurisdiction." We agree that this sentence affords the court considerable flexibility "to design an appropriate plan to meet the needs of the juvenile." However, we do not think this sentence authorizes the court, as it did in this case, to direct a county or any of its agencies to spend large sums of money in the acquisition of real estate, either by purchase or lease, in the equipping and furnishing of the property, and in employing personnel in order to carry out a plan that the court feels would be appropriate to meet the needs of a particular juvenile and others like him. Among other things, we can envision serious budgeting problems that counties and their agencies would encounter if the district courts had this authority. We have also reviewed other statutes which might possibly provide the court with the authority it attempted to exercise in this instance. We are unable to find that authority. G.S. 7A-648 is entitled "Dispositional alternatives for delinquent or undisciplined juvenile" and G.S. 7A-649 is entitled "Dispositional alternatives for delinquent juvenile." Neither of these statutes vests the court with the authority in question. While matters implied by the language of statutes must be given effect to the same extent as matters specifically expressed, Iredell County Board of Education v. Dickson, 235 N.C. 359, 70 S.E.2d 14 (1952), the court may not, under the guise of judicial interpretation, interpolate provisions which are lacking. Board of Education v. Wilson, 215 N.C. 216, 1 S.E.2d 544 (1939); 12 Strong's N.C. Index, 3d, Statutes, § 5. We can appreciate the great problems district court judges are having in deciding what to do with certain juveniles. Judge Pfaff is to be commended for seeking cooperation with the Department of Social Services and other agencies in trying to bring into existence facilities and programs that would best serve the needs of Phillip and others like him. But there is a limit to what the court can do by fiat. For the reasons stated, that part of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing Guilford County's appeal from the order entered 3 November 1980 is vacated, and said order adjudging Frank Wilson in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a fine and do other things is Reversed.