Articles in the Juvenile Justice category

One of the unique aspects of juvenile delinquency procedure is the intake and evaluation process. This mandatory process precedes commencement of a delinquency court action and determines if an initial […]

In late March The Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) instituted a new process for the appointment and payment of counsel for cases in which a juvenile between the ages of 13 and 17 is charged with first-degree murder or murder where the degree is undesignated. The process, called the Juvenile First-Degree Murder Roster (JFDM Roster) is operated by the Office of the Juvenile Defender (OJD). For the 27 counties currently participating in the program, there is a new process for appointment of counsel in these cases.

I am happy to share a new resource with you: Delinquency Law: Original Juvenile Jurisdiction and Juvenile Jurisdiction over Parents, Guardians, and Custodians. This new Juvenile Law Bulletin (1) describes the current law of original juvenile jurisdiction; (2) provides a guide to the law of original juvenile jurisdiction based on offense dates between 2019 and 2024; and (3) describes juvenile jurisdiction over parents, guardians, and custodians of juvenile respondents in delinquency proceedings. Selected highlights from the Bulletin are provided below.

The Juvenile Code provides explicit procedure for discovery in juvenile delinquency matters. This procedure does not mirror the law that governs discovery in criminal matters. The statutes also do not address the constitutional obligation for disclosure of certain exculpatory evidence under the standard established in Brady v. Maryland, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963). This post explains both the statutory framework for and constitutional obligation regarding discovery in delinquency cases.

The 2025 legislative session resulted in a small number of changes to the laws that govern delinquency proceedings. They include extended terms of probation and post-release supervision in some cases, prosecutorial authority to file a motion for review, a new requirement for hearings to terminate probation for cases in which there is a victim, and technical changes to conform school notification requirements.

The 2024 Annual Report issued by the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) includes descriptive information related to the processing of cases in the juvenile justice system and the use of facilities that serve juveniles.  Highlights include a notable increase in motor vehicle-related property offenses and increased demand for capacity in juvenile detention facilities. This post explores these highlights. All the data included below comes from the 2024 Annual Report unless otherwise noted.

The most recent Court of Appeals delinquency-related decision, In the Matter of D.H., ___ N.C.App. ___ (August 20, 2025), is one of a very few opinions that addresses a trial court’s order placing a juvenile in the custody of a department of social services (DSS custody) through a delinquency disposition. This area of law can be very confusing for practitioners. At its core, the juvenile is in DSS custody without a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency; instead, there is a petition alleging the juvenile is delinquent. The possibility of DSS custody is also available in undisciplined juvenile proceedings. This blog provides a brief overview of when the court can issue such an order in a delinquency or undisciplined case and explains why simultaneous nonsecure and secure custody orders and dispositional orders that include both DSS custody and commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC) are a legal impossibility.

The law that governs which cases begin under juvenile jurisdiction changed three times between 2019 and 2025. Each change applies to offenses beginning on and after the effective date of the legislation and is impacted by subsequent changes. This blog pulls the different changes together in one place, providing the quick reference chart below to explain which cases begin under juvenile jurisdiction and which cases begin under criminal jurisdiction.

Dispositional orders in delinquency cases must contain “appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” G.S. 7B-2512(a). What constitutes appropriate findings of fact is a question that North Carolina appellate courts have repeatedly addressed. This blog explains the requirement for findings in delinquency dispositional orders and provides examples of findings that the North Carolina Court of Appeals has found to be sufficient.

I recently had the opportunity to watch a webinar on the latest research about how protective factors and strength-based services impact reoffending among justice-involved youth. The webinar focused on the second brief (Impacts on Long-Term Youth Reoffending) from the Youth Protective Factors Study (hereinafter the Study). The Study offers interesting findings related to the way risk and protective factors work (or, spoiler alert, don’t work) to reduce reoffending. This research can help practitioners focus limited resources on system responses and interventions most likely to promote public safety.