Articles in the Juvenile Law category - Page 2 of 7

Beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025, new laws are in effect regarding the standard and procedures for addressing juvenile capacity to proceed. The new statutes can be found in G.S. 7B-2401-2401.5. You can find blogs about the details of the new standard and procedures here and here. This major revision to the law of juvenile capacity to proceed required new court forms and a new process for credentialing juvenile forensic evaluators. This post details those new structures.

Does the law that makes personally identifiable arrest information a public record apply to the arrest of a person who is 16-or 17-years-old and charged with a Class A – E felony? This is the most common question I have received since the law of juvenile jurisdiction changed on December 1, 2024. Beginning with offenses committed on that date, Class A – E felonies committed at ages 16 and 17 fall under original criminal jurisdiction. G.S. 7B-1501(7)b.2. That means that these cases are now criminal cases from their inception. At the same time, the youth involved fall under the definition of juvenile in the Juvenile Code. G.S. 7B-1501(17). This leaves many people wondering which law applies—the public records law about law enforcement arrest records or the Juvenile Code provisions about the confidential nature of law enforcement records and files concerning juveniles?

Five-year-old Katy* has experienced a lot in her young life. As a baby in her mother’s care, Katy was exposed to substance use and domestic violence, leading to a county department of social services (DSS) petition alleging Katy was neglected. DSS and Katy’s parents established a safety plan for her to live with her father. Katy was later adjudicated neglected. At initial disposition, the trial court was asked for the first time to consider removing Katy from her father, who was not the subject of allegations in the petition, based on concerns over his criminal history. The trial court agreed with DSS, granting temporary custody of Katy to paternal relatives. In re K.C., __ N.C. __ (Dec. 13, 2024).

The initial disposition order included that both of Katy’s parents acted inconsistent with their constitutional rights as parents. Sl.Op. at 5. The father appealed, arguing that the court erred by drawing this conclusion without receiving evidence and without discussion from any party on the issue. Applying a de novo review of this conclusion of law, a divided Court of Appeals panel agreed, vacated the disposition order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. Our Supreme Court granted DSS’ petition for discretionary review and raised the issue of whether the father had preserved the constitutional claims for appeal – which the Court held he had not. Sl.Op. 6-7. Read on to learn what it means for parents and their attorneys.

When Session Law (S.L.) 2024-17 takes effect next Sunday, December 1, cases in which a Class A – E felony offense is alleged to have been committed at age 16 or 17 will originate under criminal jurisdiction. This means that the juveniles involved in these cases will be processed as defendants in criminal proceedings and not under the procedure for initiating a juvenile delinquency proceeding. At first blush, it may seem that this change will bring local procedure back to what it was before most offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 were brought under original juvenile jurisdiction (with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act in 2019). However, since 2019, both federal and state law changed in ways that shifted the landscape of arrest processing and confinement of minors. This blog explores these changes and their impact on implementation of S.L. 2024-17.

A new law governing capacity to proceed in delinquency cases is set to take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025. Part V. of Session Law 2023-114 creates a juvenile capacity standard and establishes procedures to be used when capacity to proceed is challenged. You can find a description of much of the new law in my blog from September. This post explains the juvenile remediation process that will be available under the new law for certain cases in which a juvenile is found to lack capacity to proceed.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals rendered a decision in In re A.K., __ N.C. App. __ (August 6, 2024), which touches on multiple issues relevant to juvenile abuse, neglect, dependency (AND) practitioners. (I blogged about one of those issues – a parent’s right to be represented by a retained attorney of their choosing, regardless of the attorney’s AND experience – here. My colleague Sara DePasquale published a blog about another issue: considering a family’s culture, including religion and language, in an AND proceeding.) This post will explore a third issue raised in the opinion: the appointment of a Rule 17 guardian ad litem (GAL) to an incompetent respondent parent.

The current law that governs a juvenile’s capacity to proceed in a delinquency matter matches part of the criminal law that governs a defendant’s capacity to proceed. The Juvenile Code expressly incorporates G.S. 15A‑1001, ‑1002, and ‑1003—the criminal provisions that establish a capacity standard and establish procedure to raise and determine capacity to proceed. G.S. 7B-2401. The criminal provisions that address safeguarding the defendant to return for trial should the defendant subsequently become capable of proceeding and return of the defendant for trial upon gaining capacity are notably absent from the Juvenile Code.

Beginning with offenses committed on January 1, 2025, the Juvenile Code will contain new laws, different from the criminal law, that establish a juvenile capacity standard, establish procedures to raise and determine capacity, and create new procedures for remediation of incapacity. This blog summarizes the new juvenile capacity standard and outlines the procedure to raise and determine capacity under the new law. More information on criminal procedure related to capacity to proceed can be found at https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/criminal/capacity-proceed.

Session Law 2024-17 contains several changes to delinquency law and new penalties for soliciting a minor to commit an offense. I covered the changes related to juvenile jurisdiction and the transfer process in last month’s blog. This blog explains the remaining changes. They include modifications to the timelines for secure custody hearings and for a victim or a complainant to request prosecutor review of a decision not to file a petition, school notification of the filing of a felony delinquency petition, restitution as a dispositional alternative, and the crime of soliciting a minor to commit an offense. These changes will take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024.

Is the court bound to order a certain disposition in a delinquency matter when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree to that disposition as part of an agreement? The short answer is no. The Juvenile Code requires the court to engage in certain procedures, to consider certain factors, and to order disposition in accord with certain parameters when developing and ordering a delinquency disposition. The mandates on the court cannot be delegated to the parties and they are not optional. This post describes these mandates and explores the implications for dispositional outcomes that are agreed upon by the juvenile and the prosecutor.

Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024).  The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.