In Re K.A.D

In In re K.A.D.,N.C. App., 653 S.E.2d 427 (2007), our Court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the respondent-father's rights to a juvenile, K.A.D., where the summons named both parents as the respondents but did not so name the juvenile, as required by N.C.G.S. 7B-1106(a). Id. at , 653 S.E.2d at 428. Because "K.A.D. was not listed as a respondent in the summons, as required by N.C.G.S. 7B-1106(a), and no summons was issued to K.A.D.," the Court vacated the termination order for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at, 653 S.E.2d at 429. In In re K.A.D.,N.C. App.187 N.C. App. 502, 653 S.E.2d 427, 428-29 (2007), the Wayne County Department of Social Services filed a petition alleging that K.A.D. was neglected and dependent. Subsequently, the trial court granted sole custody of K.A.D. to the child's paternal grandfather and step-grandmother (the "grandparents"). Thereafter, on 25 July 2006, the grandparents filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of K.A.D.'s parents. "On the same day, Petitioners issued a summons to Respondent-father and K.A.D.'s mother." Id. at 503, 653 S.E.2d at 428. The trial court eventually terminated the parents' parental rights. On appeal, the father argued solely "that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights proceeding" because of "Petitioners' failure to issue a summons to the juvenile." Id. After setting forth the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1106(a) (2005), the Court noted: Petitioners issued a summons designating Respondent-father and K.A.D.'s mother as respondents on 26 July 2006. Accordingly, a summons was issued to Respondent-father and the juvenile's mother. However, K.A.D. was not listed as a respondent in the summons . . . and no summons was issued to K.A.D. Id. The Court then vacated the order terminating the father's parental rights, holding, as stated above, "when a summons is not properly issued, an order terminating parental rights must be vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Id. at 504, 653 S.E.2d at 429 (citing C.T., 182 N.C. App. at 475, 643 S.E.2d at 25).