G.S. 50B-3(b) provides that, if requested to do so before a current domestic violence protective order (DVPO) expires, the trial court can renew the order for good cause for an additional fixed term, not to exceed two years, even if the current order has previously been renewed. All provisions in the protective order can be renewed, except temporary custody provisions cannot exceed one year in total duration. G.S. 50B-3(a1)(4). While a plaintiff must be a resident of North Carolina to request a DVPO, GS 50B-2, the plaintiff does not need to continue to reside in North Carolina to request that the DVPO be renewed. Comstock v. Comstock, 244 N.C. App. 20 (2015).
Continue Reading-
-
New Juvenile Capacity Law: Court Forms and Forensic Evaluators
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. Continue Reading
-
Big Changes Coming to North Carolina’s Child Fatality Prevention System
Tragically, 1,474 North Carolina children under the age of 18 died in 2022. According to the North Carolina Child Fatality Task Force’s 2024 Annual Report, the rate of child deaths in 2022 was 64.2 per 100,000 children—the highest rate recorded in the state since 2009. North Carolina will soon undergo a substantial restructuring of its statewide child fatality prevention system, including changes to how child fatalities and active child protective services cases are reviewed at the local level. The statutory changes to the system’s structure, many of which will become effective on July 1, 2025, were part of the 2023 Appropriations Act (S.L. 2023-134), as later amended by S.L. 2024-1 and S.L. 2024-57. The goal of these changes was to “eliminate the silos and redundancy that exist within the current system,” while also seeking to strengthen the system’s effectiveness in preventing child abuse, neglect, and death. Read on to learn more about the new system.
Continue Reading -
Congratulations to Newly Certified Magistrates
For most citizens in North Carolina magistrates are the “first face” of the judicial system. They serve the public with professionalism, continually staying updated on the ever-evolving civil and criminal laws. Teaching magistrates is a very fulfilling part of my job, because they are always eager to learn, and they readily participate in class.
Continue Reading -
Public Records and Minors Arrested Under Criminal Jurisdiction
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? Continue Reading
-
NC Supreme Court Opinion Clarifies and Changes Findings Required in A/N/D Orders
On December 13, 2024, the NC Supreme Court published In re L.L., an appeal of a permanency planning order (PPO) that awarded custody to a non-parent. In the PPO, the court awarded permanent custody to the child’s foster parents rather than the child’s maternal grandfather. In achieving this permanent plan, the court eliminated reunification with the child’s mother as a permanent plan. The issues for appeal focused on whether the trial court made the necessary statutory findings for placement with a non-relative and for eliminating reunification as a permanent plan. The Court of Appeals held the required findings were not made. See 291 N.C. App. 402 (2023) (unpublished). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and addressed what findings are required for both non-relative placement and the elimination of reunification as a permanent plan. The answer may surprise you and will have an impact on court orders moving forward. Continue Reading
-
N.C. Supreme Court Clarifies When and How to Preserve Parents’ Constitutionally Protected Rights for an A/N/D Appeal
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.
-
New Resource: Creating Release of Information Forms for the Disclosure of Health, Mental Health, Social Services, and Substance Use Disorder Information with Client Consent
Many of the confidentiality laws that apply to North Carolina’s social services agencies, mental health facilities, healthcare providers, local health departments, and substance use disorder treatment providers permit disclosure of confidential information with client or patient consent. However, these confidentiality laws and regulations use different terms, create different restrictions, provide different exceptions to those restrictions, and apply to different types of information or different entities. These differences make it challenging to draft a single form by which a client may authorize multiple agencies or organizations to share confidential information about that client with each other.
Continue Reading -
Legislative Roundup: Recent Changes Affecting Small Claims, Summary Ejectment, Magistrates, and Real Property Crimes
The end of the year is always a good time to look back and reflect. The close of 2024 offers an opportunity to examine recent legislative developments affecting small claims procedure, summary ejectment, magistrate nominations, and real property crimes. The amendments and enactments discussed in this post are currently effective.
Continue Reading -
Initial Disposition and the Responsibility of DSS to Provide Reunification Efforts in A/N/D Cases
When children are removed from their home through a court order in an abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) action, a county department of social services (DSS) is required to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. See G.S. 7B-507(a)(2); 7B-903(a3). “Reasonable efforts” are defined in part as “[t]he diligent use of preventive or reunification services by a department of social services when a juvenile’s remaining at home or returning home is consistent with achieving a safe, permanent home for the juvenile within a reasonable period of time” G.S. 7B-101(18). “Return home or reunification” is defined as the “[p]lacement of the juvenile in the home of either parent or placement of the juvenile in the home of a guardian or custodian from whose home the child was removed by court order.” G.S. 7B-101(18c). This means reasonable efforts for reunification (sometimes referred to as “reunification efforts”) must occur for both parents and if there is a guardian or custodian from whom the child was removed, that guardian or custodian as well. However, the Juvenile Code (G.S. Chapter 7B) authorizes the court to relieve DSS of the obligation to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. When the court may enter such an order is limited to an initial dispositional hearing or a permanency planning hearing. The findings a court must make before relieving DSS of making reasonable efforts for reunification differs at initial disposition and permanency planning. Compare G.S. 7B-901(c) with 7B-906.2(b); see In re T.W., 250 N.C. App. 68 (2016). What is required at initial disposition? Our appellate courts have provided some guidance. Continue Reading