In In re Mitchell, 126 N.C. App. 432, 485 S.E.2d 623 (1997), the trial court concluded that because respondents appeared with counsel at an initial non-secure custody hearing, respondent had actual notice, and issuance and service of the summons was not required. This Court disagreed, holding that because no summons had ever been issued, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction, and respondents' motion to dismiss should have been allowed. This Court noted that "in a juvenile action, the petition is the pleading; the summons is the process. The issuance and service of process is the means by which the court obtains jurisdiction." Id. If one were to stop reading In re Mitchell at this point, one might conclude that summons solely related to personal jurisdiction, or process, and could be waived. However, In re Mitchell then specifically states that "where no summons is issued the court acquires jurisdiction over neither the persons nor the subject matter of the action." Id. (citing Swenson v. Assurance Co., 33 N.C. App. 458, 235 S.E.2d 793 (1977)). It was clear that the trial court in In re Mitchell lacked personal jurisdiction, therefore it was not necessary to reach the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clearly considered that the petitioner's failure to issue a summons could be waived by respondents' participation in the case, but declined to find waiver because "respondents cannot be held to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by their appearance at the initial hearing, since they timely raised the issue of insufficiency of process at that hearing by their oral motion to dismiss." Id. at 434, 485 S.E.2d at 624.