In Re Matthew F. — Rogers, J., concurring

Summary

The concurrence disagrees with treating the petitioner's failure to allege continued educational attendance after age eighteen as a subject matter jurisdictional defect. It would hold that the petitioner invoked a class of claims within the trial court's authority and that the missing allegation concerned an essential element and the legal sufficiency or merits of the claim. The concurrence therefore would reverse on that ground, while agreeing that reaching age eighteen alone did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction and that the voluntary-services statute did not apply.