The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently vacated an order that terminated a father’s parental rights to his two children. The decision came after the court found that the trial court did not have proper jurisdiction to make such a ruling. This case affects the father, who has not been involved in his children's lives for over five years, and the mother, who sought to terminate his parental rights.

The case, titled In re: J.Z.M. & A.M., was filed under docket number 25-1155. It originated in Union County, where the trial court had previously ruled in favor of the mother, granting her request to terminate the father's rights. The ruling was made on September 19, 2025, after a hearing where the father did not appear.

The parties involved in this case are the mother, identified as the petitioner, and the father, referred to as the respondent. The couple was married and had two children while living in Ohio. They divorced in 2017, and an Ohio court granted the father limited visitation rights in 2020. However, after the mother moved with the children to North Carolina, the father remained in Ohio and had not attempted to contact or support the children for over five years.

The mother filed a petition in North Carolina to terminate the father's parental rights. During the trial, the court found that the father had made no effort to see the children or provide them with care, support, or education. Based on this evidence, the trial court ruled to terminate his parental rights.

However, the father appealed the decision, arguing that the North Carolina trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue its ruling. The Court of Appeals agreed with the father, stating that the trial court failed to follow the requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The court noted that the trial court needed to communicate with the Ohio court to obtain consent for relinquishing jurisdiction before modifying the existing custody order.

The court ruled, "There is nothing in the record demonstrating that the trial court followed the requirements of the UCCJEA to properly gain jurisdiction."

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court did not make any findings that would allow it to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction under North Carolina General Statutes. As a result, the appellate court had no choice but to vacate the trial court's orders terminating the father's parental rights.

The ruling has significant implications for the father and the mother. It means that the father's parental rights remain intact for now, and the trial court cannot modify the Ohio custody order unless it properly acquires jurisdiction. This decision also highlights the importance of following legal procedures in custody cases, especially when they involve multiple states.

The Court of Appeals panel consisted of Chief Judge Dillon and Judges Zachary and Freeman. Their decision emphasizes the need for courts to adhere to jurisdictional requirements when handling custody matters, particularly when parents reside in different states.

Moving forward, the father retains his parental rights, and the mother may need to reassess her options regarding custody and visitation. The case underscores the complexities of custody disputes that cross state lines and the necessity of adhering to established legal frameworks.

As for what’s next, it is unclear if the mother will appeal the Court of Appeals' decision. The court filing did not indicate any related cases pending at this time. However, the mother may consider seeking further legal advice on how to proceed given the appellate court's ruling.