Consider the situation where a grandparent or other nonparent files a custody action against a parent. The complaint includes allegations regarding the relationship between the nonparent and the child and includes allegations that the parent has waived their constitutional right to exclusive care, custody and control of the child. In response, the parent files an answer and a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), arguing that the nonparent does not have standing to seek custody of the child. To determine whether the complaint should be dismissed for plaintiff’s lack of standing, does the court need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parent has waived their constitutional right to custody or is the standing determination made on a review of the complaint alone?
Continue Reading-
-
The State Budget Act Amends the Term of Office for Appointed District Court Judges
It is a new year, and there are new rules for determining the term of office for a district court judge appointed to fill a vacancy.
First, some background. Judicial vacancies are filled by appointment of the governor. This is a constitutional requirement for appellate and superior court judges, see N.C. Const. Art. IV, § 19, and a statutory requirement for the office of district court judge, see N.C. Const. Art. IV, § 10 (providing that vacancies in the office of district court judge are filled for the unexpired term “in a manner prescribed by law”); G.S. 7A-142 (providing for appointment by the governor).
Continue Reading -
Goodbye to Another Year of Changes
This is the last blog post of 2021 and a goodbye to another year of transitions. COVID is still with us, requiring us to be flexible and ever changing as the state of the pandemic hits highs and lows. It has been almost two years of unpredictability. At times, it feels like the state of uncertainty will never end. What will our new normal be? Some changes are here to stay; for example, WebEx hearings (see G.S. 7A-49.6 (S.L. 2021-47)). Others, I hope will be left behind.
Continue Reading -
Child custody jurisdiction: what happens when everyone leaves the state while the case is pending?
Suppose mother files an action for custody when North Carolina is the home state of the child and mother and father both reside in North Carolina. Temporary orders are entered in the case and a couple of years go by without a permanent order being entered. When mom requests a trial date for entry of a permanent order, dad files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because mom, the child and dad all now reside in other states. No one resides in North Carolina. Should the case be dismissed?
Continue Reading -
Rules of Conduct Created for North Carolina Magistrates
This post was written by UNC School of Government faculty member Tom Thornburg.
Following years of discussion and drafts, a formal Rules of Conduct for Magistrates was promulgated by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) effective October 1, 2021.
Statutory Authorization
In June, Session Law 2021-47 Section 13.(a) authorized the AOC to prescribe rules of conduct for all magistrates via a new G.S. 7A-171.3. It said that the rules of conduct shall include rules governing standards of professional conduct and timeliness, required duties and responsibilities, methods for ethical decision making, and any other topic deemed relevant by the AOC.
Continue Reading -
The Latest Guide in a Series: The First Seven Days
The UNC School of Government’s Public Defense Education group is excited to announce the newest entry in a series of practice guides, The First Seven Days, by Timothy Heinle, Civil Defender Educator. The guides offer practical tips and strategies for respondent’s attorneys in various civil proceedings to use during the first several days of representation. The ideas suggested in the guides are designed to help busy attorneys hit the ground running in ways that reduce stress for the attorney and improve representation for the client.
The newest entry in the series is The First Seven Days as a Parent Defender. Strategies are explored that will improve client representation and help attorneys better manage their workloads and Continue Reading
-
Legislative Changes to Required Mental Health Assessments Before Entering a Delinquency Disposition: New Provisions of G.S. 7B-2502
This is the third in a series of blogs about the changes contained in Session Law 2021-123. It summarizes the new requirement for court ordered mental health assessments, including a new care review team process. (see Raise the Age Legislative Changes and From 6 to 10: New Minimum Age for Juvenile Delinquency and Undisciplined Jurisdiction for previous blogs about the other provisions in S.L. 2021-123).
A steady stream of appellate caselaw, beginning with In re E.M., 263 N.C.App. 476 (2019), established that G.S.7B-2502(c) requires the trial court to refer a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent to the local management entity (LME) prior to ordering a disposition when there is any amount of evidence that the juvenile has a mental illness. The purpose of the referral is for the LME to conduct an interdisciplinary evaluation and mobilize resources. Beginning with petitions filed on December 1, 2021, this statutory mandate is changing. The court will be required to order mental health assessments under different circumstances and, in some cases, to order a care review team after the assessment is completed. Continue Reading
-
Update: Specific Personal Jurisdiction at the U.S. Supreme Court and the N.C. Court of Appeals
Personal jurisdiction, as the name implies, refers to the authority of a court over a particular person. In order for a court to have authority over someone in a civil case, three things must exist: (1) effective service of process, (2) a statute allowing the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the case (G.S. 1-75.4, North Carolina’s long-arm statute, is the relevant statute in our state), and (3) compliance with the due process clause of the federal constitution. Continue Reading
-
New SOG Bulletin: “When and How Criminal-Defense Attorneys Can Obtain Access to Confidential Child Welfare and Juvenile Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Records”
I am happy to announce the publication of my new bulletin, “When and How Criminal-Defense Attorneys Can Obtain Access to Confidential Child Welfare and Juvenile Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Records.” I hope it is of help to anyone needing to determine criminal attorney access to these protected records.
Consider these common scenarios. A criminal attorney learns that a county department of social services (DSS) or equivalent agency has been involved with that attorney’s client and family. Or maybe the attorney believes that the DSS has investigated a report of suspected abuse, neglect, or dependency that involves a witness or alleged victim in the criminal case. How can the criminal attorney access existing child-welfare and juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency records that may be relevant to the criminal case?
Alternatively, a respondent parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker in a juvenile abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) action has been charged criminally. The criminal attorney asks the attorney representing the same individual in the A/N/D matter to share records and information relating to the A/N/D proceeding. What can the A/N/D attorney share with the criminal attorney?
-
Attorney fees for contempt in family law cases: Only for a prevailing party?
In Walter v. Walter, decided by the NC Court of Appeals on August 17, 2021, the court vacated an award of attorney fees in a contempt proceeding arising out of an alleged violation of a custody order because the party awarded fees did not prevail in the contempt proceeding. The court in Walter held that a party cannot be ordered to pay attorney fees if not found to be in contempt. Similarly, in McKinney v. McKinney, 253 NC App 473 (2017), the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to mother after concluding the trial court’s findings of fact did not support the conclusion father was in contempt for violating a custody order. See also Ruth v. Ruth, 158 NC App 123 (2003)(fees generally available only to prevailing party, except fees can be awarded to moving party when that party fails to prevail only because alleged contemnor complies with order after contempt proceeding initiated but before hearing).
Continue Reading