Title: In re M.R.J.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 37A21
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-112 
No. 37A21 
Filed 24 September 2021 
IN THE MATTER OF: M.R.J. 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-1001(a1)(1) from an order entered on 30 
September 2020 by Judge Monica Bousman in District Court, Wake County. This 
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 19 August 2021 but 
determined on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of 
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
 
Mary Boyce Wells for petitioner-appellee Wake County Human Services. 
 
Michelle FormyDuval Lynch for appellee Guardian ad Litem. 
 
Christopher M. Watford for respondent-appellant mother. 
 
 
MORGAN, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
Respondent-mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her 
parental rights to “Mike,”1 a minor child born in April 2018. Because we conclude that 
the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and did not abuse its discretion 
in determining Mike’s best interests, we affirm.  
I. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
                                            
1 We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of some of the individuals discussed in 
this opinion and for ease of reading. We note that the trial court’s order also terminated the 
parental rights of Mike’s father, whose identity is unknown.  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 2 
 
In April 2018, Vance County Child Protective Services (VCCPS) received a 
report that Mike and his twin brother had tested positive for methadone and 
marijuana at birth. While VCCPS was assessing the family on 10 June 2018, the 
agency received a second report on the family that Mike’s twin brother had died in 
respondent-mother’s home. Respondent-mother stated that she had placed both 
children on a bed and later found the deceased child unresponsive.  
¶ 3 
 
On 10 June 2018, VCCPS placed Mike with Theresa R., an approved safety 
resource who lived in Wake County. The family was found to be in need of services, 
and the case was transferred from VCCPS to Wake County Human Services (WCHS) 
in August 2018.  
¶ 4 
 
A WCHS social worker scheduled a home visit with respondent-mother and 
Theresa R. for the afternoon of 15 October 2018. When the social worker arrived at 
the residence, Theresa R. reported that respondent-mother had removed Mike from 
the home on the previous day of 14 October 2018, claiming that respondent-mother 
was taking Mike to live with his maternal grandmother in South Carolina. 
Respondent-mother confirmed to the social worker on 15 October 2018 that she “sent” 
Mike to South Carolina to live with his maternal grandmother.   
¶ 5 
 
On 31 October 2018, the WCHS social worker visited respondent-mother at the 
Wake County Detention Center where respondent-mother was being held for 
violating her probation. Respondent-mother agreed to contact the social worker after 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
her release from jail but failed to do so.  
¶ 6 
 
WCHS was unaware of respondent-mother’s whereabouts after her release 
from incarceration until 2 January 2019, when the social worker learned that 
respondent-mother was hospitalized at UNC Hospital with an infection. WCHS 
contacted respondent-mother and established a safety plan for Mike, pursuant to 
which he would continue to reside with the maternal grandmother in South Carolina. 
On the following day of 3 January 2019, respondent-mother gave the name of a friend 
of hers in Vance County to the social worker and asked for the friend to be considered 
as a placement for Mike. VCCPS conducted a home study of respondent-mother’s 
recommended friend on behalf of WCHS but did not approve the friend as a 
placement.  
¶ 7 
 
On 16 January 2019, a safety assessment was performed on the maternal 
grandmother’s home by Fairfield County, South Carolina, CPS. The grandmother’s 
residence was approved for Mike’s placement. Respondent-mother identified for 
WCHS another friend, Donna W., as a potential placement option for respondent-
mother’s children. On 30 January 2019, WCHS approved Donna W.’s home as a 
placement for Mike’s older half-brother.  
¶ 8 
 
 Respondent-mother was released from UNC Hospital on 1 February 2019, but 
she failed to respond to repeated telephone calls from WCHS social workers. On 8 
February 2019, the maternal grandmother brought Mike to Wake County to visit 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
respondent-mother, after obtaining the approval of WCHS for Mike to stay overnight 
in Donna W.’s home. WCHS informed Donna W. and the maternal grandmother that 
Mike was to return to South Carolina on 10 February 2019.  
¶ 9 
 
The maternal grandmother reported that respondent-mother was incoherent 
and falling asleep during a supervised visit with Mike on 10 February 2019. On the 
next day of 11 February 2019, respondent-mother contacted law enforcement in Wake 
County and reported that Mike was with the maternal grandmother and that the 
maternal grandmother had been drinking alcohol. Multiple police units and a 
helicopter responded to the call. Officers detained the maternal grandmother and 
contacted WCHS, which confirmed that Mike was legally placed with the maternal 
grandmother and that she had not been drinking. Respondent-mother then sent 
numerous text messages to the WCHS social worker on 11 February 2019, 
threatening to remove Mike from his placement with the maternal grandmother and 
reminding the social worker that respondent-mother still had legal custody of the 
child.   
¶ 10 
 
On 13 February 2019, WCHS filed a juvenile petition alleging that Mike was 
neglected. The petition stated that respondent-mother “is reportedly still actively 
using heroin and is without stable housing” and that she “has not been compliant 
with any recommended services” or treatment to address her substance abuse and 
mental health issues. WCHS further alleged that respondent-mother “continues to 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
sabotage” Mike’s placement with the maternal grandmother, “has not been willing to 
allow [Mike] to remain in a stable placement[,]” and “has a history of becoming upset 
with kinship providers/temporary safety providers and immediately removing the 
children from the home.”  
¶ 11 
 
Based on the petition’s verified allegations, the trial court granted nonsecure 
custody of Mike to WCHS on 13 February 2019. On 14 February 2019, Mike joined 
his older half-brother in a fictive kinship placement with Donna W. in Wake County.  
¶ 12 
 
The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition on 9 May 2019. Based on a 
written stipulation of facts signed by the parties, the trial court adjudicated Mike to 
be a neglected juvenile in that he “do[es] not receive proper care and supervision from 
[his] parents and live[s] in an environment injurious to [his] welfare.” See N.C.G.S. § 
7B-101(15) (2019). The trial court kept Mike in WCHS custody and awarded weekly 
supervised visitation with the child to respondent-mother. Mike remained in his 
placement with Donna W. 
¶ 13 
 
In addition to the aforementioned facts, the trial court found as follows: 
30. 
The mother submitted to a substance abuse 
assessment and [was] diagnosed with Opiate Use Disorder 
Severe and given specific recommendations. She is using 
amounts of Heroin that are life threatening and needs to 
go into drug detoxification immediately . . . .  
31. 
The mother is not in[ ]compliance with the terms 
and conditions of her probation and has stated that she is 
not visiting [Mike] because she is afraid of being arrested 
. . . .  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
32. 
The mother reports diagnoses of Bi-Polar Disorder 
and Personality Disorder . . . . 
The trial court ordered respondent-mother to comply with her Out-of-Home Family 
Services Agreement (OHFSA) by immediately entering drug detoxification; 
participating in intensive outpatient drug treatment; refraining from the use of 
impairing substances; submitting to random drug screens; obtaining a psychiatric 
evaluation; obtaining a psychological evaluation and following any recommendations; 
refraining from criminal activity and complying with the conditions of her probation; 
participating in parenting classes and demonstrating learned parenting skills; 
obtaining and maintaining stable and appropriate housing and income; maintaining 
regular contact with the WCHS social worker; and regularly attending visitations.  
¶ 14 
 
The trial court held a permanency planning hearing on 5 August 2019 and 
entered an order on 19 September 2019 establishing a primary permanent plan of 
reunification with a secondary plan of adoption. The trial court found that 
respondent-mother had not maintained regular contact with the social worker or 
documented respondent-mother’s completion of any court-ordered services. 
Respondent-mother had been incarcerated in the Vance County Jail through mid-
July 2019, had additional pending charges in Wake and Franklin Counties, and had 
not visited with Mike since March 2019. The trial court concluded that respondent-
mother “continues to act in a manner inconsistent with her [c]onstitutionally 
protected status as a parent . . . .”  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 15 
 
At the next permanency planning hearing, in an order entered on 9 March 
2020, the trial court changed Mike’s primary permanent plan to adoption with a 
secondary plan of reunification. With regard to the requirements of her OHFSA, the 
trial court found that respondent-mother had failed to respond to the social worker’s 
telephone calls, text messages, emails, or letters; was jailed in Vance County in 
January 2020 for violating her probation and resisting a public officer; had failed to 
comply with the recommendations of her substance abuse assessment; had failed to 
submit to any requested drug screens; had failed to attend a scheduled psychological 
evaluation or to reschedule the appointment; was discharged by her parenting coach 
for lack of communication and general noncompliance; and had failed to attend any 
visitations with Mike. The trial court determined that further efforts to reunify Mike 
with respondent-mother “clearly would be unsuccessful or inconsistent with [his] 
health or safety and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable time.” See 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019).  
¶ 16 
 
On 12 March 2020, WCHS filed a motion to terminate respondent-mother’s 
parental rights to Mike. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on 10 July and 
3 August 2020 and entered its “Order Terminating Parental Rights” on 30 September 
2020. As grounds for termination, the trial court established that respondent-mother 
previously neglected Mike and was likely to subject him to further neglect if he was 
returned to her care, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019), and that respondent-mother 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
willfully left Mike in an out-of-home placement for more than twelve months without 
making reasonable progress to correct the conditions leading to his removal, see 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(2). The trial court concluded that it was in Mike’s best interests 
for the parental rights of respondent-mother to be terminated. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-
1110(a) (2019).  
¶ 17 
 
Respondent-mother filed timely notice of appeal from the order terminating 
her parental rights.  
II. 
Respondent-Mother’s Arguments on Appeal 
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 
¶ 18 
 
Respondent-mother first claims that the trial court was without jurisdiction to 
enter the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights because WCHS 
lacked standing to initiate the termination proceeding under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a) 
(2019).  
¶ 19 
 
“Whether or not a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction is a question 
of law that is reviewed de novo. Challenges to a trial court’s subject-matter 
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including for the first time 
before this Court.” In re A.L.L., 376 N.C. 99, 101 (2020) (extraneity omitted). 
However, “[t]his Court presumes the trial court has properly exercised jurisdiction 
unless the party challenging jurisdiction meets its burden of showing otherwise.” 
In re L.T., 374 N.C. 567, 569 (2020). 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 20 
 
The statute that confers subject matter jurisdiction over termination of 
parental rights proceedings provides as follows: 
The court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear 
and determine any petition or motion relating to 
termination of parental rights to any juvenile who resides 
in, is found in, or is in the legal or actual custody of a county 
department of social services or licensed child-placing 
agency in the district at the time of filing of the petition or 
motion. . . . Provided, that before exercising jurisdiction 
under this Article, the court shall find that it has 
jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination under 
the provisions of G.S. 50A-201, 50A-203, or 50A-204. 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101 (2019). The Juvenile Code defines “[c]ourt” as “[t]he district court 
division of the General Court of Justice.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(6) (2019). 
¶ 21 
 
Respondent-mother does not claim that the District Court, Wake County failed 
to meet the general jurisdictional requirements of N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101; she instead 
contends that WCHS lacked standing under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1109(a) to initiate the 
termination proceeding in this case. Respondent-mother’s argument is well 
summarized by the Court of Appeals opinion in In re E.X.J.:   
Under N.C.[G.S.] § 7B-1103(a)(3) (20[19]), a petition or 
motion to terminate the parental rights of a parent may be 
filed by a “county department of social services . . . to whom 
custody of the juvenile has been given by a court of 
competent jurisdiction.” If DSS does not lawfully have 
custody of the children, then it lacks standing to file a 
petition or motion to terminate parental rights, and the 
trial court, as a result, lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  
In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. 34, 39 (2008) (ellipsis in original), aff’d per curiam, 363 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
N.C. 9 (2009).   
¶ 22 
 
Respondent-mother contends that WCHS was not “a proper party” authorized 
to file the petition which alleged that Mike was neglected in February 2019. She 
opines that Mike was a resident of South Carolina when the petition was filed and 
when the District Court, Wake County purported to grant nonsecure custody of the 
child to WCHS on 13 February 2019. Respondent-mother also contends that the 
petition filed by WCHS “fail[ed] to establish that [her] legal residence was in Wake 
County.” As a result, “because the [WCHS] director had no authority over a child 
whose legal residence was in South Carolina, the petition was void for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction[,]” and “the initial order granting nonsecure [custody] was 
invalid[.]” Respondent-mother consequently reasons that the District Court, Wake 
County was not “a court of competent jurisdiction” when it awarded WCHS custody 
of Mike, and WCHS “lacked standing to move for the termination of [respondent-
mother’s] parental rights” under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(3).  
¶ 23 
 
“North Carolina district courts have ‘exclusive, original [subject matter] 
jurisdiction over any case involving a juvenile who is alleged to be abused, neglected, 
or dependent.’ ” In re E.X.J., 191 N.C. App. at 47 (alteration in original) (quoting 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-200 (2005)). “A trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over all stages 
of a juvenile case is established when the action is initiated with the filing of a 
properly verified petition.” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593 (2006). Under N.C.G.S. 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
§ 7B-401.1(a), “[o]nly a county director of social services or the director’s authorized 
representative may file a petition alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, or 
dependent.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a) (2019).  
¶ 24 
 
In interpreting N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a), respondent-mother notes that N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-101(10) defines “Director” as “the director of the department of social services in 
the county in which the juvenile resides or is found, or the director’s representative 
. . . .” She then points to N.C.G.S. § 153A-257(a) (2019), which allocates the 
responsibility for providing social services among the state’s local social services 
agencies based on the recipient’s county of residence. “Read in paria materi [sic],” 
respondent-mother argues that “both of these statutes are meant to identify the 
director, if any, who is responsible for providing a service, such as filing a juvenile 
petition, and both unquestionably tie that identification to location.” 
¶ 25 
 
Based on her reading of the statutes, respondent-mother asserts that  
[t]he director of Wake County, and by extension, any 
authorized 
representative, 
was 
without 
statutory 
authority to file the juvenile petition in this matter. It is 
undisputed that [Mike] resided in South Carolina with his 
grandmother for 131 days including the day of the filing of 
the Petition. It is undisputed that [respondent-mother’s] 
actual location was unknown and that Wake County made 
no representation as to where they believed her to reside. 
No document indicates that the child “was found in” Wake 
County prior to anytime before the filing of the petition. 
Thus, under both G.S. § 7B-101 and G.S. § 153A-247, Wake 
County has no authority over Mike at the time of filing. 
¶ 26 
 
Respondent-mother’s positions are inconsistent with the factual record before 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
this Court. Moreover, her legal arguments appear to address the issue of venue and 
thus do not implicate the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to place Mike in 
WCHS custody. 
¶ 27 
 
We have previously considered and rejected the claim that the definition of 
“Director” found in N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(10) imposes a geographical limit on which 
“county director” may invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction by filing a 
juvenile petition under N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a). Regarding this circumstance, this 
Court has stated: 
Because the language of section 7B-401.1(a) identifies ‘‘a 
county director of social services’’ as the proper petitioner 
in a juvenile adjudication action rather than ‘‘the director’’ 
(importing the definition from N.C.G.S. § 7B-101(10)) or 
similar language singling out particular directors, we hold 
that the legislature did not intend to limit the class of 
parties who may invoke the court’s subject matter 
jurisdiction in juvenile adjudication actions to only 
directors of county departments of social services in the 
county where the juvenile at issue resides or is found.  
In re A.P., 371 N.C. 14, 20 (2018). Nor does N.C.G.S. § 153A-257(a) purport to limit 
the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction in juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency 
cases.2  
                                            
2 Respondent-mother attempts to replace the requirement of the trial court’s subject 
matter jurisdiction with a novel concept of a petitioner’s subject matter jurisdiction, arguing 
that “because the [WCHS] director had no authority over a child whose legal residence was 
in South Carolina, the petition was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Emphasis 
added).  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 28 
 
The question of which county director of social services is sanctioned to file a 
juvenile petition is answered by the venue statute N.C.G.S. § 7B-400, which provides:    
A proceeding in which a juvenile is alleged to be abused, 
neglected, or dependent may be commenced in the judicial 
district in which the juvenile resides or is present at the 
time the petition is filed. . . . Notwithstanding G.S. 153A-
257, the absence of a juvenile from the juvenile’s home 
pursuant to a protection plan during an assessment or the 
provision of case management services by a department of 
social services shall not change the original venue if it 
subsequently becomes necessary to file a juvenile petition. 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-400(a) (2019). 
¶ 29 
 
“Improper venue is not jurisdictional, and it is subject to waiver.” Stokes v. 
Stokes, 371 N.C. 770, 773 (2018) (emphasis added). Unlike the issue of subject matter 
jurisdiction, which may be raised at any time, an objection to improper venue is 
waived if not “taken in apt time” in the trial court. McMinn v. Hamilton, 77 N.C. 300, 
301 (1877);  see also N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(1) (“A defense of . . . improper venue 
. . . is waived (i) if omitted from a motion [made under Rule 12], or (ii) if it is neither 
made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an 
amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.”). 
Because respondent-mother made no claim of improper venue at any time in the trial 
court while this matter was pending in the lower forum, the issue of venue is waived 
and therefore is not properly before this Court. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1).   
¶ 30 
 
Moreover, contrary to respondent-mother’s characterization, the record 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
demonstrates that Wake County is a proper venue for the juvenile proceeding 
initiated on 13 February 2019. The verified petition filed by WCHS expressly alleged 
that Mike “resides in the district at the address shown below, was found in the district 
as alleged herein, or venue exists pursuant to G.S. 7B-400(a) or (b).” Although the 
petition did not list respondent-mother’s street address, it identified her as “a citizen 
and resident of Wake County, North Carolina[.]”3 The petition further averred—and 
respondent-mother subsequently stipulated—that Mike was living in South Carolina 
with his maternal grandmother pursuant to a safety plan that WCHS established 
with respondent-mother on 2 January 2019. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-400(a) (“[T]he absence 
of a juvenile from the juvenile’s home pursuant to a protection plan during an 
assessment or the provision of case management services by a department of social 
services shall not change the original venue if it subsequently becomes necessary to 
file a juvenile petition.”). Finally, the petition’s allegations—and the parties’ signed 
stipulations entered on 8 May 2019—indicated that Mike was visiting Wake County 
with his grandmother and was therefore “present” in the county at the time that 
                                            
3 Respondent-mother later stipulated that she was “a citizen and resident of 
Henderson, North Carolina[.]” Although Henderson is located in Vance County rather than 
Wake County, North Carolina, this potential discrepancy had no effect on the trial court’s 
subject matter jurisdiction. See generally In re A.P., 371 N.C. at 20 (“hold[ing] that the 
legislature did not intend to limit the class of parties who may invoke the court’s subject 
matter jurisdiction in juvenile adjudication actions to only directors of county departments 
of social services in the county where the juvenile at issue resides or is found.”). Moreover, 
since it is unclear from the record here, there is the prospect that respondent-mother was a 
Wake County resident when WCHS filed its petition in February 2019 yet was a Vance 
County resident when she signed the stipulation in March or May of 2019. 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
WCHS filed the petition on 13 February 2019.4 N.C.G.S. § 7B-400(a) (allowing 
proceeding to “be commenced in the judicial district in which the juvenile resides or 
is present at the time the petition is filed”).  
¶ 31 
 
Respondent-mother also frames her challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction 
in terms of the statutory requirement that a juvenile petition be verified pursuant to 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-403(a) by the “county director of social services or the director’s 
authorized representative[.]” N.C.G.S. § 7B-401.1(a); see also N.C.G.S. § 7B-403(a) 
(“[T]he petition shall be drawn by the director, verified before an official authorized 
to administer oaths, and filed by the clerk . . . .” (emphasis added)). In doing so, 
respondent-mother quotes our opinion in In re T.R.P. for the principle that “[a] trial 
court’s subject matter jurisdiction over all stages of a juvenile case is established 
when the action is initiated with the filing of a properly verified petition.” In re T.R.P., 
360 N.C. at 593 (emphasis added). She goes on to contend that, in the present case, 
“[t]he initial juvenile petition seeking custody of Mike was improperly verified and 
thus did not grant the court subject matter jurisdiction to issue the initial non-secure 
                                            
4 The petition and the parties’ stipulations describe the maternal grandmother’s 
attainment of WCHS’s approval to visit Wake County with Mike on 8 February 2019 and “to 
stay overnight at the home of Mrs. Donna W[.] during [the] visit.” Although Mike and his 
grandmother “were to return to South Carolina . . . on Sunday, February 10, 2019[,]” they 
remained in Wake County at least through 11 February 2019, when respondent-mother 
called the police and reported that Mike was with his maternal grandmother who had been 
drinking. “Wake County police . . . responded and detained [the maternal grandmother] until 
they got in contact with [WCHS] After [H]ours who assisted with ensuring that [Mike was] 
legally placed in the care of [the grandmother] and [she] had not been drinking[.]”  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
custody order on 13 February 2019.” (Emphasis added). 
¶ 32 
 
In In re T.R.P., this Court held that the Wilkes County Department of Social 
Services’ “failure to verify [its] juvenile petition is a fatal defect” depriving the trial 
court of subject matter jurisdiction. 360 N.C. at 598. We noted that, “[a]lthough the 
juvenile petition setting forth these allegations [of neglect] was notarized, it was 
neither signed nor verified by the Director of WCDSS or any authorized 
representative thereof.” Id. at 589. Other cases cited by respondent-mother likewise 
involved a petitioner’s failure to verify its petition in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 7B-
403(a). See In re S.E.P., 184 N.C. App. 481, 487 (2007) (“Neither the 26 September 
2002 adjudication petition nor the 8 April 2004 amended petition conferred subject 
matter jurisdiction upon the trial court” because (1) “the alleged signature which 
appears on the [original] petition was not in fact the director’s signature[,]” and  (2) 
“[t]he verification section of the amended petition shows no signature in the 
‘Signature of Petitioner’ space.”); In re A.J.H-R., 184 N.C. App. 177, 180 (2007) 
(concluding that the trial court “lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this 
matter” where the juvenile neglect petitions were “neither signed nor verified” by the 
agency’s director or his authorized representative).  
¶ 33 
 
In the instant case, the petition filed by WCHS was properly verified before a 
notary by social worker Martheia Capel, acting as the authorized representative of 
WCHS Director Regina Petteway, thereby satisfying the verification requirement in 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-403(a). Given this obvious distinction, respondent-mother’s reliance on 
In re T.R.P. and similar cases is misplaced and unavailing. See In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 
at 589 (“Although the juvenile petition . . . was notarized, it was neither signed nor 
verified by the Director of WCDSS or any authorized representative thereof.”). 
¶ 34 
 
Having addressed respondent-mother’s arguments challenging the trial court’s 
subject matter jurisdiction, we next consider whether the trial court properly 
exercised its recognized jurisdiction in light of the fact that Mike was living in South 
Carolina with his maternal grandmother at the time that the petition was filed. We 
conclude that the trial court had such jurisdiction.     
¶ 35 
 
In North Carolina, the issue of whether the courts of a particular state have 
jurisdiction over a proceeding which affects child custody is governed by the Uniform 
Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), specifically the 
provisions of Article 2, Part 2 as codified in N.C.G.S. §§ 50A-201 through -210 (2019). 
See, e.g., N.C.G.S. § 7B-1101 (“[B]efore exercising jurisdiction under this Article, the 
court shall find that it has jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination under 
the provisions of G.S. 50A-201, 50A-203, or 50A-204.”). “The trial court must comply 
with the UCCJEA in order to have subject matter jurisdiction over juvenile abuse, 
neglect, and dependency cases and termination of parental rights cases.” In re L.T., 
374 N.C. at 569. Although respondent-mother makes no mention of these statutes, 
nonetheless the scope of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction here, and the 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
extent to which it is impacted—if at all—by the availability of the courts of South 
Carolina, is properly determined by consulting the applicable provisions of this 
enactment.  
¶ 36 
 
Under the UCCJEA,  
[g]enerally, North Carolina courts have jurisdiction to 
make a child custody determination if North Carolina is 
the home state of the child. N.C.G.S. § 50A-201(a)(1). 
“ ‘Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with 
a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six 
consecutive 
months 
immediately 
before 
the 
commencement of a child-custody proceeding.” N.C.G.S. 
§ 50A-102(7) (2017). If a court of another state has home 
state jurisdiction, North Carolina courts do not have 
jurisdiction unless one of several statutory exceptions 
applies.  
In re S.E., 373 N.C. 360, 364 (2020). 
¶ 37 
 
Respondent-mother observes that “[i]t is undisputed that [Mike] resided in 
South Carolina with his grandmother for 131 days including the day of the filing of 
the Petition” on 13 February 2019. Because 131 days is less than the six consecutive 
months required by N.C.G.S. § 50A-102(7) for home state recognition, South Carolina 
is not Mike’s home state for jurisdictional purposes under the UCCJEA. Furthermore, 
as the guardian ad litem correctly notes, Mike was born in late April of 2018 and 
therefore had not been alive for a full six months at the time that he left North 
Carolina to live with his maternal grandmother in South Carolina on 15 October 
2018. We agree with the contention that Mike had no home state under the UCCJEA, 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
because (1) Mike had not lived in any state for at least six consecutive months prior 
to the petition being filed, and (2) although Mike was less than six months of age, he 
had not lived from birth in any one state with a parent or person acting as a parent. 
N.C.G.S. § 50A-102(7).  
¶ 38 
 
Also, the UCCJEA provides, due to North Carolina’s adoption of it, that “a 
court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination” in 
the following circumstances: 
a. The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 
one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant 
connection with this State other than mere physical 
presence; and 
b. Substantial evidence is available in this State 
concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and 
personal relationships[.] 
N.C.G.S. § 50A-201(a)(2) (2019). “The trial court is not required to make specific 
findings of fact demonstrating its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, but the record 
must reflect that the jurisdictional prerequisites in the Act were satisfied when the 
court exercised jurisdiction.” In re L.T., 374 N.C. at 569. 
¶ 39 
 
The record in the case sub judice illustrates that both Mike and respondent-
mother had a significant connection with North Carolina beyond their mere presence 
in the state at the time WCHS filed its petition on 13 February 2019. See N.C.G.S. 
§ 50A-201(a)(2)(a). Respondent-mother had been a North Carolina resident at least 
since Mike’s birth and had a CPS history in both Vance and Wake Counties. M.T., 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
one of respondent-mother’s older children, and two of respondent-mother’s safety 
resources, Theresa R. and Donna W., were also North Carolina residents. 
Respondent-mother was also on probation in North Carolina and had additional 
criminal charges pending. Mike was born in North Carolina and lived in the state 
before he was taken to South Carolina to live with his maternal grandmother on 15 
October 2018. Mike’s mother and an older sibling continued to reside in North 
Carolina at the time that the petition was filed.   
¶ 40 
 
The record further reflects that substantial evidence was available in North 
Carolina regarding Mike’s care and family history at the time that the petition was 
filed. See N.C.G.S. § 50A-201(a)(2)(b). Respondent-mother, Theresa R., and Donna W. 
were all located in North Carolina, and so were (1) the hospital where Mike was born 
and where Mike tested positive for methadone and marijuana, (2) two child protective 
services agencies that investigated, and consistently provided services to, the family 
since Mike’s birth, and (3) the police department that responded to respondent-
mother’s false report of Mike’s abduction by his maternal grandmother on 11 
February 2019. Therefore, the District Court, Wake County properly exercised 
“significant connection” jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.  
¶ 41 
 
We conclude that the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the 
juvenile petition filed by WCHS on 13 February 2019. The trial court thereupon 
entered its orders placing Mike in WCHS custody in the trial court’s capacity as “a 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
court of competent jurisdiction.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(3). Accordingly, WCHS had 
standing under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1103(a)(3) to file its motion to terminate respondent-
mother’s parental rights on 12 March 2020 and the trial court had jurisdiction to 
issue the termination of parental rights order.    
B.  Best Interests Determination 
¶ 42 
 
Respondent-mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion at the 
dispositional stage of the proceeding by determining that it was in Mike’s best 
interests to terminate her parental rights. Respondent-mother argues that the trial 
court did not need to terminate her parental rights because respondent-mother had 
already executed a conditional relinquishment or “specific relinquishment” of her 
rights authorizing Mike to be adopted by her sister and brother-in-law (the 
Petersons).5 Respondent-mother asserts that the trial court mistakenly believed that 
terminating her parental rights was necessary to provide Mike with legal protections 
beyond those which were conferred by her relinquishment. 
¶ 43 
 
Under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a), if the trial court adjudicates the existence of one 
or more statutory grounds for terminating a respondent-parent’s rights, 
it proceeds to the dispositional stage where it must 
“determine whether terminating the parent’s rights is in 
                                            
5 Although respondent-mother posits that the termination order effectively 
“terminated parental rights of a parent that did not exist[,]” she asserts that her appeal is 
not moot because the order may result in adverse collateral consequences to her  “including[,] 
but not limited to, a potential termination of parental rights to future children under 
[N.C.]G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(9) [(2019)].”  
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the juvenile’s best interest” based on the following factors: 
(1) The age of the juvenile. 
 
(2) The likelihood of adoption of the juvenile. 
 
(3) Whether the termination of parental 
rights will aid in the accomplishment of the 
permanent plan for the juvenile. 
 
(4) The bond between the juvenile and the 
parent. 
 
(5) The quality of the relationship between 
the juvenile and the proposed adoptive 
parent, guardian, custodian, or other 
permanent placement. 
 
(6) Any relevant consideration. 
 
In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. 787, 791 (2020) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a)). 
¶ 44 
 
The trial court’s determination of a juvenile’s best interests under N.C.G.S. 
§ 7B-1110(a) is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. In re B.E., 375 N.C. 730, 745 
(2020). “Under this standard, we defer to the trial court’s decision unless it is 
‘manifestly unsupported by reason or one so arbitrary that it could not have been the 
result of a reasoned decision.’ ” Id. at 745 (quoting In re J.J.B., 374 N.C. at 791). An 
abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court bases its best interests determination 
on a misunderstanding of the relevant law. Id. 
¶ 45 
 
Although she did not produce such a document in court, respondent-mother 
adduced testimony at the dispositional hearing that she executed a relinquishment 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
of her parental rights to Mike on 10 July 2020, conditioned upon his adoption by the 
Petersons. See N.C.G.S. § 48-3-704 (2019). The trial court made the following findings 
of fact related to the dispositional criteria in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a): 
32. 
The primary permanent plan for the child is 
adoption and termination of the parents’ parental rights 
will aid in the accomplishment of the primary permanent 
[plan]. 
33. 
The child is 2 years of age. He is young and healthy 
and has no developmental issues that are likely to be a 
barrier to adoption. 
34. 
. . . The child has been out of the care of the mother 
since he was approximately 38 days old. He has had limited 
and inconsistent contact with the mother since that time. 
He does not have a substantial parent-child relationship 
with the mother. 
35. 
The child was placed in the home of [Donna W. and 
her husband] as requested by the mother when he came 
into foster care. He has remained in that home since that 
time. His needs are being met in the home and they are 
willing to adopt the child. He has developed a strong, 
appropriate parent-child bond with them. He is happy and 
healthy. He looks to them for comfort, and accepts 
discipline from them. 
36. 
The mother has a sister and brother in law (“the 
[Petersons]”) in South Carolina [who] submitted to an 
ICPC home study for possible placement of the child. They 
would also be willing to adopt the child. The ICPC home 
study was positive. The [Petersons] and the child have had 
a few visits since February, 2020. The child does not have 
a parental bond with the [Petersons] at the present time 
but he has the ability to . . . bond with caregivers and could 
bond with them if they are chosen to adopt him. 
37. The child’s young age and availability of at least two 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
families that are committed to adopting him indicates 
[there] is a high probability that this child will be adopted. 
He is in need of a permanent plan of care at the earliest 
possible age which can be obtained only by the severing of 
the relationship between the child and his parents by 
termination of the parental rights of the parents. 
As respondent-mother does not contest these findings, they are binding on appeal. In 
re A.M.O., 375 N.C. 717, 720 (2020). 
¶ 46 
 
In support of her claim that the trial court acted under a misapprehension of 
law, respondent-mother points to the trial court’s statement in open court which 
expressed concern that Mike might be left without a permanent placement for an 
extended period of time if the trial court did not elect to terminate respondent-
mother’s parental rights and the Petersons were subsequently unable to adopt the 
child: 
[Counsel for respondent-mother] makes a very valid point 
that if I did not find [terminating respondent-mother’s 
parental rights] was in [Mike’s] best interest that the 
mother’s already signed relinquishments and that the 
[Petersons] could -- could just then adopt him. We all know 
that things happen that none of us plan. Something may 
happen in the future that even if the [Petersons] were 
chosen to be the adoptive parents, it could be that 
something would happen to them. And I am not wishing 
anybody any bad luck. Believe me. But -- but things 
happen.    
Af -- after presiding in this courtroom for seventeen and a 
half years, I am very well aware of things that happened 
that interrupt the adoption process. And that is not in 
[Mike’s] best interest. And then we would be right back 
where we would -- where -- where we are right now a year 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
from now, two years from now, or something like that, and 
[Mike] still would not have permanence if the [Petersons] 
were unable to adopt him and if I found that it wasn’t in 
his best interest. 
¶ 47 
 
Respondent-mother asserts that “it is very possible that Mike can find 
permanence through adoption with the [Petersons],” and that, even if the Petersons 
were ultimately granted guardianship of Mike in lieu of adoption, “that too is a 
permanency outcome which does not mandate the termination of [her] parental 
rights.” She notes that the trial court made no findings explaining “what conditions 
might be encountered that would interrupt the [Petersons’] adoption process, or 
somehow stall permanence for Mike.” Moreover, notwithstanding the trial court’s 
articulated concerns, respondent-mother argues that the trial court erred in believing 
that it was necessary to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights in order to 
provide permanency for Mike. She suggests that the trial court could have “held open 
a decision as to [her parental rights] to see if Mike actually found permanence with 
the [Petersons].”  
¶ 48 
 
Respondent-mother’s argument is unpersuasive. Assuming that respondent-
mother did, in fact, execute a valid specific relinquishment of her parental rights to 
Mike expressly to facilitate Mike’s adoption by the Petersons, the adoption statutes 
permit her to revoke her relinquishment if, for whatever reason, the Petersons did 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
not adopt Mike.6 See N.C.G.S. §§ 48-3-704, -707(b) (2019). Irrespective of the 
Petersons’ willingness or ability to adopt the child, respondent-mother was also free 
to challenge the relinquishment at any time prior to entry of the adoption decree on 
the ground that the relinquishment was “obtained by fraud or duress.” N.C.G.S. § 48-
3-707(a)(1) (2019). In either case, Mike would be needlessly denied permanence for 
some period of time. See N.C.G.S. § 48-3-707(c). The trial court’s recognition of 
potential hindrances, whether general or specific, to the realization of Mike’s primary 
permanent plan of adoption does not reflect either a misapprehension of the law or 
an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s contemplation here of the juvenile’s best 
interests. 
¶ 49 
 
By terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights, the trial court facilitated 
Mike’s adoption by the Petersons, by Donna W. and her husband—who had already 
developed “a strong, appropriate parent-child bond” with the child—and by any other 
adoptive parents identified and approved by WCHS. Respondent-mother does not 
offer an explanation as to why it is in Mike’s best interests to limit his options for 
adoption to a single family such as the Petersons, to the exclusion of his current 
                                            
6 Respondent-mother’s observation that the Petersons could be granted guardianship 
of Mike without terminating her parental rights is true, with or without her execution of the 
specific relinquishment. While guardianship provides some measure of permanence for the 
ward, see N.C.G.S. § 7B-600(b) (2019), it does not ensure the same degree of finality as 
adoption. Compare N.C.G.S. §§ 7B-600(b)–(b1), -1000 (2019) (authorizing review and 
termination of guardianship) with N.C.G.S. § 48-1-106 (2019) (describing legal effect of 
adoption and rights of adoptee). 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
caretakers or other potential adoptive families.  
¶ 50 
 
The trial court’s written findings reflect its due consideration of the factors in 
N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and provide a reasoned basis for the trial court’s conclusion 
that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights would further Mike’s 
best interests by providing the juvenile with “a permanent plan of care at the earliest 
possible age.” See In re B.E., 375 N.C. at 750. We therefore hold that the trial court 
did not abuse its discretion in terminating the parental rights of respondent-mother 
and, consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent-mother’s 
parental rights.        
III. 
Conclusion 
¶ 51 
 
WCHS had standing to file a motion to terminate the parental rights of 
respondent-mother pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1103(a)(3) because the juvenile Mike 
was placed in the custody of WCHS in February 2019 by a trial court of competent 
jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the 
order which terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights. 
¶ 52 
 
The trial court did not base its determination of Mike’s best interests upon a 
misapprehension of the law pertaining to the legal effect of respondent-mother’s 
specific relinquishment of her parental rights, nor did the trial court abuse its 
discretion in evaluating its considerations and reaching its conclusions regarding the 
juvenile’s best interests. The trial court properly considered the dispositional factors 
IN RE M.R.J. 
2021-NCSC-112 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) in concluding that the termination of the parental rights of 
respondent-mother was in the juvenile’s best interests.  Accordingly, the trial court’s 
order is affirmed.  
AFFIRMED.