The matter of Sinclair v Sinclair was a run of the mill case requesting modification of a child support order from Virginia in the Cabarrus County Family Court.  The Virginia order contained both custody and child support orders in the same document  The VA order had been filed by Mother in NC under General Statute Section 50A-305, regarding child custody.  Father (custodial parent) did not object.

The case then proceeded to trial on the basis of a modification of child support.  Mother appealed from a family court order finding that a change in circumstances had occurred and that a modification was justified.  

Ruling sua sponte, the NC Court of Appeals found it had no subject matter jurisdiction to decide a child support modification as the VA order was registered only on the issue of custody.  Neither party raised an objection that the  VA Order was not registered pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Chapter 52C, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”), for purposes of modification of child support.   

The only way for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction to do anything is if a statute gives the court subject matter jurisdiction.  General Statute Chapter 52C does exactly that and, while one may allege that the court was being picky, it was not. Without specific statutory legal authority (subject matter jurisdiction), the family court had no legal basis to make a decision modifying the VA child support order.  Further, parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction- it can only be conferred by statute. 

So the moral of this story is that we lawyers need to take care to be be precise in our pleadings and legal work.  Sometimes legal technicalities really do matter!

Guy Vitetta

Charleston