BLOG
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 […]
We have Chapter 50B authorizing civil domestic violence protective orders to protect victims of domestic violence and Chapter 50C authorizing civil no-contact orders to protect victims of sexual misconduct and […]
Delinquency adjudications and criminal convictions of minors who have been transferred to Superior Court for trial as adults both require that the elements of the offense charged are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the required criminal state of mind, or mens rea, existed. The adolescent mind has been the subject of substantial scientific research. This research grounded several United State Supreme Court decisions related to criminal punishment of minors and when Miranda warnings are necessary. However, the question of how the science of adolescent brain development does or does not connect to the mens rea requirements of various offenses is not well litigated. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dipped a toe in this area in its recent ruling in State v. Smith, __ N.C. App. __ (June 6, 2023).
The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) governs a state’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear child custody cases, including abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D), and termination of parent rights (TPR). See G.S. 50A-102(4); 50A-106. Without following the jurisdictional requirements of the UCCJEA, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Any orders entered when a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction are void ab initio. In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (2006). I receive numerous inquiries about the UCCJEA in A/N/D cases. A common question involves North Carolina’s use of temporary emergency jurisdiction and whether it ever becomes initial custody jurisdiction when North Carolina becomes the juvenile’s “home state” after the A/N/D petition has been filed in district court. Earlier this month, the court of appeals answered this question when it published In re N.B., ___ N.C. App. ___ (July 5, 2023). This blog serves as a follow up to my previous blog post about temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Every magistrate has picked up the phone to a caller who is staying at a hotel asking if he is a tenant or a hotel guest. If it is not the occupant calling, then it is the owner of the hotel asking if they have to evict the occupant or if they can take out trespass charges. Recent legislation, S.L. 2023-5, defines “transient occupancy” in inns, hotels, motels, recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds, and other similar lodgings in a manner that may provide some clarification for callers who are owners and residents of these types of lodgings.
The drug xylazine has been in the news recently as a dangerous substance commonly mixed with heroin, fentanyl, and other drugs. Xylazine is not an opioid nor is it currently […]
The investigation of offenses subject to juvenile jurisdiction requires an understanding of how the law regarding juvenile investigations varies from the law that governs criminal investigations. I am happy to share Juvenile Law Related to the Investigation of Delinquent Acts, a new Juvenile Law Bulletin that details laws unique to juvenile investigations. This blog provides some highlights from the search and seizure section of the Bulletin.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 and applies to designated “child custody proceedings” that involve an “Indian child.” An Indian child is a person who is under 18 years old and is either (1) a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (2) eligible for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe and a biological child of a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. 25 U.S.C. 1903(4). There are four types of child custody proceedings that are governed by ICWA: (1) foster care placements, (2) preadoptive placements, (3) termination of parental rights (TPR), and (4) adoptions.
The purpose of ICWA is to set minimal federal standards for four types of child custody proceedings that involve the removal and placement of Indian children. Through ICWA, Congress sought to address “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families that are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies.” 25 U.S.C. 1901(4). ICWA encompasses a national policy of protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. 25 U.S.C. 1902. ICWA has many provisions that apply to abuse, neglect, dependency; TPR; guardianship of minors; and adoptions of minors (including stepparent adoptions) when an Indian child is involved. (For more information about ICWA and its requirements, see Chapter 13, section 13.2 of the A/N/D-TPR Manual here.)
In 2019, ICWA was challenged as and held to be unconstitutional because it exceeded federal authority, infringed on state sovereignty, and discriminated on race. That federal district court opinion was appealed and ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last Thursday, in a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected every challenge made by the petitioners in Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) and held that ICWA is constitutional. This opinion has two concurrences and two dissents, all of which are discussed below.
Imagine a Department of Social Services (DSS) receives a report alleging a juvenile was abused by her father. Following an investigation, DSS substantiates the report. At this point, does placing […]
An adjudicatory hearing in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action is “a judicial process designed to adjudicate the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in the petition.” G.S. 7B-802. The conditions refer to whether the juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent. Because of the statutory language of G.S. 7B-802, the general rule created by the appellate courts is that post-petition evidence is not considered at an adjudicatory hearing. However, the court of appeals has stated this rule is “not absolute.” In re V.B., 239 N.C. App. 340, 344 (2015). In the last several years, the court of appeals has carved out 3 exceptions to the rule that allow for post-petition evidence: (1) a neglect adjudication when there is a long period of separation between the child and parent before the petition is filed, (2) dependency adjudications, and (3) evidence of fixed and ongoing circumstances, such as paternity and mental illness. In November 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court in In re L.N.H., 382 N.C. 536 (2022) addressed one of those exceptions, the dependency adjudication exception, and determined the court of appeals exception was error. So, what is the rule regarding post-petition evidence? It’s a little murky now.