BLAST Command Line Applications User Manual

c. In a private termination action, petitioner’s failure to include a prior custodyorder with the petition and failure to include the name and address of anappointed guardian rendered the petition fatally defective. In re Z.T.B., 170N.C. App. 564 (2005).5. Facts sufficient to support a determination that one or more grounds forterminating parental rights exist.a. The court cannot adjudicate a ground that is not alleged in the petition. See,e.g., In re B.L.H., 190 N.C. App. 142, aff'd per curiam 362 N.C. 674 (2008)(holding that a petition could not be amended to conform to the evidence andallege a new ground); In re S.R.G., 195 N.C. App. 79 (2009); In re C.W., 182N.C. App. 214 (2007). Cf. In re A.H., 183 N.C. App. 609 (2007) (holding thatalthough the petition did not specifically reference G.S. 7B-1111(a)(6), theallegations gave respondent sufficient notice that termination would be soughton the ground that she was incapable of providing proper care and supervisionof child).b. Although a motion [which the opinion refers to as a petition] asserted onlybarebones legal bases as grounds for terminating parental rights, it wassufficiently detailed because it incorporated by reference the entire juvenilefile in the matter. In re H.T., 180 N.C. App. 611 (2006).c. A bare allegation that the parent neglected the child and willfully abandonedthe child for six months did not comply with this pleading requirement, but anattached custody decree incorporated into the petition did contain sufficientfacts. In re Quevedo, 106 N.C. App. 574 (1992).d. Allegations need not be exhaustive or extensive, but they must put a party onnotice as to acts, omissions, or conditions that are at issue and must do morethan recite the statutory wording of the ground. In re Hardesty, 150 N.C. App.380 (2002). See also In re Humphrey, 156 N.C. App. 533 (2003) (holding thatthe allegations were sufficient to put respondent on notice even though thepetition did not specifically allege neglect).6. A statement that the petition or motion has not been filed to circumvent theUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).a. While the petition should include this statement, its omission did not result inprejudice to respondent and was not reversible error. In re Humphrey, 156N.C. App. 533 (2003). See also In re B.D., 174 N.C. App. 234 (2005); In reJ.D.S., 170 N.C. App. 244 (2005) (holding that omission of the statement didnot deprive the trial court of jurisdiction).September 2012TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS© 2012 School of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill25