holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner, or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts, regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian, or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court, and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition, it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court
How later courts described this case
- holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner, or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts, regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian, or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court, and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition, it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court
- holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action, the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal
- holding that “[t]he use of the word ‘shall’ by our Legislature has been held by this Court to be a mandate, and the failure to comply with this mandate constitutes reversible error”
- holding that when defects in a petition raise a question of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the issue may properly be raised for the first time on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Judge MARTIN dissenting.
Judge HUDSON concurs.