Articles in the Child Welfare Law category - Page 11 of 12

*For more information about this new law, see the following supplemental book chapter, Suspected Child Maltreatment Occurring in a Child Care Facility, to the book, Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect […]

Part I introduced the new G.S. 7B-505.1 and 7B-903.1(e) and discussed the county department’s statutory authority to consent to a child’s

• routine medical and dental care;
• emergency medical, surgical, or mental health care;
• testing and evaluation in exigent circumstances, and
• a Child Medical Evaluation (CME).

What about Medical Care that Is neither Routine nor an Emergency?

Through S.L. 2015-136, “An Act to Make Various Changes to the Juvenile Laws Pertaining to Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency,” the General Assembly enacted G.S. 7B-505.1 and G.S. 7B-903.1(e).These two new statutes address medical decision-making authority for a child who is placed in a county department’s custody through an order entered in an abuse, neglect, and dependency action. These new laws apply to all abuse, neglect, and dependency actions that were pending on or filed after October 1, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, several new statutes affecting abuse, neglect, and dependency cases went into effect. Three new statutes specifically address decision-making standards related to social and cultural activities for children who are placed in a county department’s custody because of abuse, neglect, or dependency. The new statutes were created by S.L. 2015-135 and are

• G.S. 131D-10.2A: Reasonable and Prudent Parent Standard,
• G.S. 7B-903.1: Juvenile Placed in Custody of Department of Social Services, and
• G.S. 48A-4: Certain Minors Competent to Contract.

A foster parent provides substitute care for a child who has been separated from his or her family because of abuse, neglect or dependency. G.S. 131D-10.2(9a);10A NCAC 70B.0101. When a […]

If the juvenile court or county department intends to place a child in an abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) case with a parent who lives outside of North Carolina, does the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) apply?

This post was amended to reflect changes made to the definition of caretaker that occurred after the post was published by section 1 of S.L. 2015-123* (effective January 1, 2016) and Section 12C.1.(d). of S.L. 2016-94, effective July 1, 2016**  

In North Carolina, abuse, neglect, and dependency cases determine the child’s status as abused, neglected, or dependent by examining the child’s circumstances rather than determining the fault or culpability of a parent. In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984). In determining a child’s status, social services agencies and trial courts must look at the statutory definitions of abuse, neglect, and dependency. G.S. 7B-101(1), (15), (9). These definitions require the social services agencies and courts to determine who created the child’s circumstances. In abuse and neglect cases, was it the child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker? In dependency cases, was it the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian? If the child’s circumstances were not caused by a parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker, the child is not abused, neglect, or dependent. A court order establishes the relationship of guardian [G.S. 7B-600; G.S. 35A-1202 & Article 6] or custodian [G.S. 7B-101(8)] to a child, but who is a caretaker?

You are appointed to represent a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding. The petition alleges the juvenile assaulted his stepfather. When you meet with your client, he discloses that his stepfather […]

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ohio v. Clark, 135 S.Ct. 2173 (2015). The Court determined whether a teacher’s testimony of a child’s statements to her was barred by the Confrontation Clause. My colleague, Jessica Smith, wrote a blog post about the holding and its impact in criminal cases. But, what about the world of child protective services?

Spoiler Alert !! Effective June 2, 2015, amendments were made to G.S. 7B-504.