BLOG
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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?
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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.