
    IN THE MATTER OF: DYLAN AUTRY
    No. 341A94
    (Filed 7 April 1995)
    Infants or Minors § 126 (NCI4th)— Willie M. child — order of specific treatment program by Division of Mental Health— trial court’s absence of authority
    The decision of the Court of Appeals | holding that the trial court lacked statutory authority to order the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services within the Department of Human Resources, to implement a specific treatment program for a dependent Willie M. child is affirmed. However, the language in the Court of Appeals opinion which appears to ground its holding in part upon the federal district court’s “continuing jurisdiction over the question of the appropriate treatment of Willie M. children” is disavowed.
    Am Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 49.
    
      Appeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) by the guardian ad litem for Dylan Autry, a minor and a dependent juvenile, from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 115 N.C. App. 263, 444 S.E.2d 239 (1994), reversing an order entered on 18 March 1993 by Tucker, J., in District Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 March 1995.
    
      William Norton Mason for the guardian ad litem, appellant.
    
    
      Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Michelle B. McPherson, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, appellee.
    
    
      J. Jerome Hartzell, Melinda Lawrence, Robert D. McDonnell, Sandra Johnson, and Carolina Legal Assistance, by Deborah Greenblatt and Christine O. Heinberg, for Willie M. Class Counsel, amicus curiae.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The Court agrees with the holding of the majority opinion for the Court of Appeals that the trial court lacked statutory authority to enter the order at issue. For that reason, and that reason only, the opinion of the Court of Appeals reversing the order is affirmed.

We disavow the language in the Court of Appeals opinion which appears to ground its holding in part upon the federal district court’s “continuing jurisdiction over the question of appropriate treatment of Willie M. children.” In re Autry, 115 N.C. App. 263, 268, 444 S.E.2d 239, 242 (1994). Our affirmance rests solely on the absence of state statutory authority for the order; we expressly decline to pass upon any question as to whether the continuing jurisdiction of the federal district court ousts the state courts of jurisdiction over issues concerning appropriate treatment for Willie M. children.

AFFIRMED.  