Search Results

• Race and Ethnicity in Juvenile Justice: North Carolina’s Numbers

  This entry was contributed by Jacquelyn Greene on August 24, 2020 at 4:59 pm and is filed under Juvenile Justice.

  With the work of the Governor’s Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice under way, it is timely to consider the issue of racial equity in the juvenile justice system. Issues of racial and ethnic disproportionality and disparity in juvenile justice have been discussed and studied in juvenile justice systems across the country for decades, as federal juvenile justice funding for states has long been tied to their study. See the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities page for more information on the federal requirement.

  North Carolina’s most recent study, Disproportionate Minority Contact in North Carolina: An Assessment Study (hereinafter “Assessment Study”), funded by the Governor’s Crime Commission and authored by Stan Orchowsky, Ph.D. of Cambiare Consulting and Michael Leiber, Ph.D., and Chae Jaynes, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida, was released in June of 2019. The findings reveal that, while there is significant local variation across counties in North Carolina, youth of color are represented throughout the juvenile justice system in far greater numbers than they are represented in the general population. These disparities are most profound at the very front door of the juvenile justice system and at the deepest end of the system in secure confinement. They are also most profound for Black youth. Continue Reading

• The Child Welfare System and Race

  This entry was contributed by Sara DePasquale on June 15, 2020 at 7:49 am and is filed under Child Welfare Law.

  The gravity of the events of recent weeks stemming from the highly publicized killings of several black citizens, including George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks, has led for a call to acknowledge and respond to systemic racism in the United States. Initially, the focus was on the actions of the police, but the call to action has grown, asking Americans to address inequities based on race as a whole within our country. That begs the question, is race a factor in the child welfare system? The answer is yes. Continue Reading

• Implicit Bias: Why Race is Hard Even when People are Good*

  This entry was contributed by Cheryl Howell on January 20, 2016 at 5:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.

  Today’s post was written by my colleague Alyson Grine. While she works and writes primarily about criminal law, the topic of implicit bias is an important one for the civil side of things as well.

  Continue Reading

• A Second Look at In re A.K., Addressing Cultural Issues in A/N/D Cases

  This entry was contributed by Sara DePasquale on September 6, 2024 at 7:48 am and is filed under Child Welfare Law.

  The North Carolina Court of Appeals in In re A.K., ___ N.C. App. ____ (Aug. 6, 2024) addressed a parent’s right to be represented by a privately retained attorney of their choosing in an abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) action. See Timothy Heinle’s post discussing that issue here. The opinion also discusses issues related to the mother’s and child’s culture – their religion and language. This post explores those aspects of the opinion. Continue Reading

• Less Restrictive Alternatives and Incompetency Restoration Proceedings

  This entry was contributed by Timothy Heinle on April 3, 2024 at 9:57 am and is filed under Guardianship, Incompetency.

  In North Carolina, when an adult is adjudicated incompetent and guardianship is ordered, guardianship is permanent until the first of these two developments occur: (i) the ward’s competency is restored, or (ii) the ward dies. G.S. 35A-1295(a).

  The recently enacted Session Law 2023-124 amended the definition of incompetency and introduced requirements to ensure the consideration of less restrictive alternatives (LRAs) before a petition for incompetency can be granted. These statutory changes are born out of a recognition of the seriousness of declaring someone incompetent, and to encourage, where appropriate, the use of alternative arrangements that impose less restrictions than plenary guardianship. The changes are effective as to petitions filed on or after January 1, 2024.

  Continue Reading

• Is a parent always a ‘necessary party’ to a custody action?

  This entry was contributed by Cheryl Howell on November 15, 2023 at 12:25 pm and is filed under Family Law.

  Consider a custody action brought by a grandparent against the mother of a child. Grandmother is seeking primary custody, arguing that mother is unfit and has waived her constitutional right to exclusive care, custody, and control of her child. Grandmother does not name the father of the child as a defendant and makes no attempt to serve him with process. The complaint states that neither the grandmother nor the mother know the location of the father, and the father has never been involved in the life of the child. Can the court move forward on grandmother’s claim without the father named as a party?

  Continue Reading

• 2023 Child Welfare Legislative Changes

  This entry was contributed by Sara DePasquale on October 3, 2023 at 2:57 pm and is filed under Child Welfare Law.

  As the 2023 Legislative Session continues, many session laws that amend child welfare statutes, including abuse, neglect, dependency; termination of parental rights (TPR); adoption of a minor; and foster care licensing became effective on various dates. Some of these changes are significant. Some session laws focus on specific statutory changes involving an individual juvenile or family; other session laws make changes to state systems. Continue Reading

• U.S. Supreme Court Holds the Indian Child Welfare Act Is Constitutional

  This entry was contributed by Sara DePasquale on June 20, 2023 at 4:10 pm and is filed under Child Welfare Law.

  The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 and applies to designated “child custody proceedings” that involve an “Indian child.” An Indian child is a person who is under 18 years old and is either (1) a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (2) eligible for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe and a biological child of a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. 25 U.S.C. 1903(4). There are four types of child custody proceedings that are governed by ICWA: (1) foster care placements, (2) preadoptive placements, (3) termination of parental rights (TPR), and (4) adoptions.

  The purpose of ICWA is to set minimal federal standards for four types of child custody proceedings that involve the removal and placement of Indian children. Through ICWA, Congress sought to address “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families that are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies.” 25 U.S.C. 1901(4). ICWA encompasses a national policy of protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. 25 U.S.C. 1902. ICWA has many provisions that apply to abuse, neglect, dependency; TPR; guardianship of minors; and adoptions of minors (including stepparent adoptions) when an Indian child is involved. (For more information about ICWA and its requirements, see Chapter 13, section 13.2 of the A/N/D-TPR Manual here.)

  In 2019, ICWA was challenged as and held to be unconstitutional because it exceeded federal authority, infringed on state sovereignty, and discriminated on race. That federal district court opinion was appealed and ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last Thursday, in a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected every challenge made by the petitioners in Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) and held that ICWA is constitutional. This opinion has two concurrences and two dissents, all of which are discussed below. Continue Reading

• Proposed Federal Rule Change Seeks to Increase Support for Relative and Nonrelative Kinship Foster Placements

  This entry was contributed by Timothy Heinle on March 23, 2023 at 10:05 am and is filed under Child Welfare Law, Social Services.

  **UPDATED 11/10/2023** The rule changes discussed in this post were finalized and adopted on September 28, 2023 and are effective November 27, 2023. As my colleague Sara DePasquale noted in her post summarizing 2023 child welfare legislative updates, 88 Federal Register 66700 (September 28, 2023) “amends the definition of ‘foster family home’ at 45 C.F.R. 1355.20(a) for the purposes of Title IV-E eligibility to allow for states to establish a set of licensing requirements and approval standards for relative foster family homes that are different from the standards that are used to license and approve non-relative foster family homes. A relative foster home licensed with the lower standards must receive the same payment as a licensed non-relative foster home (amended 45 C.F.R. 1356.21(m)(1)). This provision will only apply if North Carolina DHHS chooses to participate.”

  ——–

  The federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is proposing regulatory changes that could have a significant impact on the placement of children removed from their parents due to suspected abuse, neglect, or dependency. This post discusses the proposed changes and the reasons supporting them and highlights the importance of relatives and nonrelative kin in juvenile abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D) proceedings.

  (Note that while the proposal refers generally to Title IV-E agencies, this post refers specifically to the Department of Social Services (DSS), the petitioner in North Carolina A/N/D matters. Additionally, this post cites to the ACF’s proposal but omits internal citations within the proposal. See the proposal if you are interested in the research and other sources cited to by the ACF.)

  Continue Reading

• Update: Specific Personal Jurisdiction at the U.S. Supreme Court and the N.C. Court of Appeals

  This entry was contributed by Emily Turner on November 18, 2021 at 2:59 pm and is filed under Civil Practice, Civil Procedure-General.

  Personal jurisdiction, as the name implies, refers to the authority of a court over a particular person. In order for a court to have authority over someone in a civil case, three things must exist: (1) effective service of process, (2) a statute allowing the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the case (G.S. 1-75.4, North Carolina’s long-arm statute, is the relevant statute in our state), and (3) compliance with the due process clause of the federal constitution. Continue Reading