Opinion ID: 1172030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The preadjudicative and merits stages of the deprived-status proceedings are jurisdictionally separable and distinct

Text: A due process infirmity rising to a jurisdictional dimension may be presented for the first the when the nisi prius decision is challenged for its constitutional flaw on direct appeal. [10] An emergency order, within the meaning of § 1104.1(C), is tantamount to process by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the preadjudicative ( pendente lite ) custody of the child. The preadjudicative custody state is to be viewed as jurisdictionally separable from the merits of the deprived-status proceedings. These stages draw on separate sources for the court's assertion of its cognizance. The former stage calls for the exercise of judicial power over the child and the latter extends over the parents' status. The merits stage focuses on the parents' rights while the preadjudicative phase centers on the child's present condition. [11] The trial court's preadjudicative stage jurisdiction was tainted by a fatally flawed process because the 40.5(A) notice-giving affidavit was not attached to the 1986 emergency order. The mother was afforded neither the requisite notice nor an opportunity to challenge this preadjudicative custody determination. The 1986 infirmity in acquiring jurisdiction over the child's preadjudicative custody was cured neither by waiver nor by the mother's later appearances in the case to defend her embattled parental interest. The latter proceeding was jurisdictionally separate and distinct from the former.