Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

In re C.L.C.

360 N.C. 475

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
2006-05-05
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that "time limitations in the Juvenile Code are not jurisdictional . . . and do not require reversal of orders in the absence of a showing by the appellant of prejudice resulting from the time delay"
  • "time limitations in the Juvenile Code are not jurisdictional"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In re C.L.C.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
59 opinions
IN RE MATTER OF C.L.C.,360 N.C. 475(2006)
IN THE MATTERS OF C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., AND E.A.R.
No. 467A05.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed May 5, 2006.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,171 N.C. App. 438,615 S.E.2d 704(2005), affirming a judgment terminating respondent's parental rights signed on 15 October 2003 by Judge Marvin P. Pope in District Court, Buncombe County. On 26 January 2006, the Supreme Court allowed respondent's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 April 2006.
Charlotte W. Nallan and John Adams forpetitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of SocialServices.Charlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellantmother.Judy N. Rudolph for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 476