Articles in the Child Welfare Law category - Page 5 of 12

The UNC School of Government’s Public Defense Education group is excited to announce the newest entry in a series of practice guides, The First Seven Days, by Timothy Heinle, Civil Defender Educator. The guides offer practical tips and strategies for respondent’s attorneys in various civil proceedings to use during the first several days of representation. The ideas suggested in the guides are designed to help busy attorneys hit the ground running in ways that reduce stress for the attorney and improve representation for the client.

The newest entry in the series is The First Seven Days as a Parent Defender. Strategies are explored that will improve client representation and help attorneys better manage their workloads and

I am happy to announce the publication of my new bulletin, “When and How Criminal-Defense Attorneys Can Obtain Access to Confidential Child Welfare and Juvenile Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Records.” I hope it is of help to anyone needing to determine criminal attorney access to these protected records.

Consider these common scenarios. A criminal attorney learns that a county department of social services (DSS) or equivalent agency has been involved with that attorney’s client and family. Or maybe the attorney believes that the DSS has investigated a report of suspected abuse, neglect, or dependency that involves a witness or alleged victim in the criminal case. How can the criminal attorney access existing child-welfare and juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency records that may be relevant to the criminal case?

Alternatively, a respondent parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker in a juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) action has been charged criminally. The criminal attorney asks the attorney representing the same individual in the A/N/D matter to share records and information relating to the A/N/D proceeding. What can the A/N/D attorney share with the criminal attorney?

READ POST "New SOG Bulletin: “When and How Criminal-Defense Attorneys Can Obtain Access to Confidential Child Welfare and Juvenile Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Records” (November 8, 2021)"

During the 2021 Legislative session, there have been numerous and significant amendments made to the laws addressing child welfare, most of which are in G.S. Chapter 7B (the Juvenile Code) and became effective October 1st. This is my third post explaining those legislative changes. Today’s post focuses exclusively on legislative changes that relate to foster parents. The issues addressed include the consideration of foster parents for placement at nonsecure custody, their participation in permanency planning hearings, required training, and the creation of a Foster parents’ Bill of Rights.

My earlier blog posts are here (summarizing S.L. 2021-100 (H132)) and here (summarizing S.L. 2021-132 (S693)). As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, more changes may be made, and if that happens, I will post about them as well.

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, many session laws that revised the abuse, neglect, dependency and termination of parental rights (TPR) statutes in the Juvenile Code (G.S. Chapter 7B) became […]

This post is also cross posted on our Coates Canon blog.

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, one new session law that addresses child welfare, S.L. 2021-132, has raised a number of questions for county department of social services (“DSS”) directors and attorneys. This new session law has many elements related to child welfare court proceedings, which my colleague Sara DePasquale will address in a separate blog post. This blog focuses solely on Section 1.(c) of S.L. 2021-132, which amends G.S. 7B-302 – a law that addresses confidentiality of child protective services (“CPS”) records. The amendment allows members of the North Carolina General Assembly to access confidential social services information and records in certain limited instances.

I apologize for getting that song stuck in your head. Unless you like that song, in which case enjoy.

Scenario: You represent a respondent parent in an abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) proceeding. The permanent plan is adoption, and DSS (or your jurisdiction’s equivalent agency) filed a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR). The trial court granted the TPR. Your client intends to appeal once the written order is entered. (Note that effective July 1, 2021, appeals of TPR orders are heard by the Court of Appeals pursuant to the newly amended G.S. 7B-1001(a)(7); see S.L. 2021-18).

A trial court can enforce a TPR order while an appeal is pending unless a stay has been entered. G.S. 7B-1003(a); G.S. 1A-1, Rule 62(d). As the trial attorney, you and your client should consider seeking a stay of the TPR order pending the appeal.

READ POST "Staycation All I Ever Wanted: Why Parent Attorneys Should Consider Requesting Stays of TPR Orders (September 15, 2021)"

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, laws that revise the Juvenile Code are being enacted. The most recent session law is S.L. 2021-100, which amends various provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes – the laws that relate to abuse, neglect, dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings. This blog summarizes the amendments made by “An Act to Make Revisions to the Juvenile Code Pursuant to Recommendations by the Court Improvement Program.”

Earlier today, the Court of Appeals published In re K.M., an opinion that examines a trial court’s permanency planning order awarding supervised visitation between a mother and her child but temporarily suspending that visitation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more than a year, pandemic restrictions have been imposed by state and local orders as well as by decisions made by individual businesses and agencies. These restrictions have impacted some court orders of visitation between parents and children that were either in effect or entered during this period. Most often, the impact has resulted in the reduction of a parent’s time with their child – either by suspending in-person visits, converting in-person visits to electronic communication, or reducing the length or frequency of visits. Questions about the appropriateness of and/or authority to make those changes to visitation orders with or without court approval have been raised. Today’s appellate decision is the first opinion that discusses this issue. However, the basis for a temporary suspension of visits is not necessarily unique to the COVID-19 pandemic. This opinion may provide guidance for the suspension of visits generally.  

The last 14 months have encompassed a year like no other because of COVID-19. As a country, we have experienced unimaginable loss of life. In our own communities and lives, we have transitioned to a new normal – one that feels more like a sci fi movie plot than our actual reality. But, reality it has been. Thankfully, we appear to be slowly moving our way back to what was once familiar. As we live in this pandemic, laws responding to the impact of COVID 19 have been passed by Congress and our own state. At the end of December 2020, Congress passed a COVID relief bill – the Consolidated Appropriations Act. There are components of that Act that have been heavily reported on – the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits for example.

Did you know that same federal law imposed a moratorium on young adults aging out of extended foster care and modifies the eligibility terms for participation in that program? In North Carolina, that program is the Foster Care 18-21 Program. What does that mean for those young adults? Do you know a young adult who was terminated from the program this calendar year? They may opt back in.

Since January 1, 2019, termination of parental rights (TPR) orders are appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In August 2019, the Supreme Court published its first appellate opinions under this new TPR appellate procedure. Between August 2019 and today, the Supreme Court has decided 134 TPR opinions, all of which are published. Each of those published opinions from our state’s highest court established or reinforced a precedent. Perhaps because of that, new and old arguments have been raised before the Supreme Court in those TPR appeals. This post focuses on what the Supreme Court has held when addressing the dispositional stage of the TPR.