In appellate work, the devil is in the details. A single error in the trial court’s order – if spotted early and preserved correctly – can be the key to unwinding an entire trial court ruling. That was exactly what happened in one of my first solo appeals.
My client was a mother to a preteen son. She and her husband had just moved to North Carolina and were settling into their new home. After a difficult day in court with their former neighbors out of state and a few too many drinks, an argument escalated. Her husband lost his temper and assaulted her – the first incident of domestic violence in their decade-long marriage. She called the police, who responded and made a mandatory report to DSS.
Initially, DSS took a reasonable approach. A caseworker visited the home and drafted a safety plan that didn’t require anyone to move out. However, almost a week later, when a new worker took over, the tone shifted dramatically. She told the parents they had two choices: one parent had to vacate the home indefinitely, or DSS would take custody of their child. They refused to separate their family, and later that evening, DSS obtained a nonsecure custody order over the phone – based on an unverified petition.
That detail – lack of verification – turned out to be everything.
Under North Carolina law, a DSS petition for custody must be verified in order to invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. At the time DSS took custody of the child, they had not verified the petition. In fact, even when we voluntarily walked to the courthouse to have my client served, the petition still wasn’t verified. DSS filed a verification form two hours later.
We consented to adjudication at the trial level to reunite the family quickly – but we preserved both the verification issue and another error that happened later: the Adjudication Order incorrectly stated that North Carolina was the child’s home state, even though the family had moved only six days earlier.
We appealed.
After reviewing our appellant’s brief, DSS conceded that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and agreed that if we withdrew the appeal, DSS would move to vacate the adjudication order at the trial level under Rule 60(b)(4). They dismissed the case, reimbursed my client’s appellate costs, and returned the family to their pre-petition legal status.
This appeal never resulted in a published opinion, but its impact was profound. It cleared my client’s record, kept a family together, corrected DSS overreach, and reaffirmed why trial strategy and appellate foresight go hand in hand.
Appeals aren’t just about fixing what went wrong. They’re about spotting issues early, documenting the record, and having the discipline to hold the system accountable when it falls short. Sometimes, one small detail can change everything.
