Articles in the Juvenile Law category - Page 3 of 7

When the court issues an order of disposition committing a juvenile to a youth development center (YDC), that commitment is almost always required to be for an indefinite period of time that lasts at least six months. G.S.7B-2513(a). The court cannot order an end date for these commitments. However, the court is required to determine the maximum period the juvenile may remain committed before an extension would have to be filed or the juvenile must be released, and to notify the juvenile of that determination at the time disposition is ordered. G.S.7B-2513(a4). How should this maximum period of commitment be calculated? And is every commitment eligible for an extension? This post addresses these questions.

Imagine a case involving a juvenile who lives in North Carolina and is in secure custody because of a charge of an act of delinquency in New York comes across your desk. You look to the Juvenile Code to read the statute that governs interstate issues. You find Article 40 of Chapter 7B, “Interstate Compact for Juveniles.” But, after reading Article 40, you realize that there is no statutory guidance regarding the actual procedure in the case.  Where do you turn? The law regarding interstate matters in juvenile justice cases is perhaps the best kept secret in juvenile law. The actual substance can only be found in the Rules promulgated by the Interstate Commission for Juveniles.

**UPDATE** Effective July 8, 2024, S.L. 2024-34 extended eligibility for financial assistance described in this post to include individuals who are providing full-time foster care to a child in DSS custody that the caretaker is related to and “if applicable, any half siblings, regardless of their [the half-sibling’s] relationship to the kinship caregiver.”  Part IV, Section 4. This allows siblings to be placed together and for the caretaker to receive financial assistance for all the children to whom they are providing full-time care. See G.S. 7B-505(a1); 7B-903.1(c1) (prioritizing siblings being placed together).

Recent changes to both state and federal law aim to increase support for relatives who provide placement and care of juveniles who are the subject of abuse, neglect, and dependency (AND) proceedings. Financial assistance to offset the costs of care and the possibility of new and relaxed licensing standards for relative placements could have a significant effect on a number of juveniles across North Carolina. This post addresses the new laws and considers what it may mean for children, families, and attorneys who represent parents in juvenile AND proceedings.

This post is written by my colleague, Kirsten Leloudis, and is cross-posted on the School’s Coates Canons Blog.

On August 16, 2023, Session Law (S.L.) 2023-106 was passed after a legislative override of the Governor’s veto. Part 1 of the session law establishes a “Parent’s Bill of Rights,” Part 2 outlines new requirements related to parents’ involvement in their child’s education, and Part 3- the focus of this blog post- codifies standards for obtaining parental consent for treatment of minors. Since the law’s passage, many have asked: “What’s the status of North Carolina’s minor’s consent law, G.S. 90-21.5(a), in light of the new requirements in S.L. 2023-106, Part 3 addressing parents’ rights?” Let’s discuss!

When you think about admitting expert testimony, do any of these questions come to mind? How does a witness get qualified to be an expert? How certain does an expert […]

Determination of the correct disposition level available in a delinquency case requires a four-step process.

1. Identify the offense for which disposition is being entered (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition offense”).
2. Identify the offense classification for the disposition offense.
3. Calculate the juvenile’s delinquency history level.
4. Use the disposition chart to identify the corresponding level or levels for the case.

The law that governs the use of nontestimonial identification procedures in delinquency matters is markedly different than the law that governs use of these same procedures in criminal matters. The Juvenile Code requires a court order prior to the use of most nontestimonial identification procedures, a nontestimonial identification order (NTO) can only be issued in relation to felony charges, there are specific statutes that govern the destruction of resulting records, and the willful violation of the juvenile NTO statutes carries a criminal penalty. This post describes when NTOs are needed, and the procedure that must be followed to obtain them, in matters under juvenile jurisdiction.

One of the unique features of the juvenile justice system is its statutory focus on identifying the needs of juveniles and resolving matters to provide “appropriate rehabilitative services to juveniles.” […]

Is it legally permissible to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent based on that juvenile’s violation of an order for protective supervision in an undisciplined matter? The North Carolina Court of Appeals says yes. The court upheld the practice of adjudicating a juvenile delinquent following an admission to indirect contempt related to violation of an order issued in an undisciplined case in In re B.W.C., 2022-NCCOA-590 (September 6, 2022). This post details the court’s holding and explores ramifications of the decision.

How does a case proceed when a juvenile is charged with a homicide offense? In classic lawyer fashion, the answer is that it depends. In almost all instances, the case will begin as a juvenile matter. However, the path the case follows once the juvenile case begins, and whether the case is ultimately adjudicated as a juvenile matter or prosecuted as a criminal matter, depends on the age of the juvenile at the time of the offense and the specific offense charged.