BLOG
As with child support, spousal support orders are most often enforced by contempt after a supporting spouse has failed to comply with the order. G.S. 50-16.7(j)(postseparation support and alimony are […]
N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-13.4 requires the North Carolina Conference of Chief District Court Judges to prescribe uniform statewide presumptive guidelines for determining the child support obligations of parents, and to […]
*Note: Session Law 2023‑114, s. 4(b). amended the timing related to when a comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) must be ordered by the corut before entering a disposition. The standard was changed from requiring a CCA within 45 days of the adjudication (as described in the post below) to requiring a CCA within 90 days of the disposition hearing.
Comprehensive clinical assessments (CCA’s) are frequently completed—and sometimes required—prior to ordering a disposition in a delinquency matter. G.S. 7B-2502(a2). You can find more information about when the statutory requirement is triggered in a previous blog. CCA’s contain information about the juvenile’s mental health and they may also contain information about substance use disorder treatment. These kinds of information are covered by federal confidentiality laws that are not specifically addressed by the Juvenile Code. While the federal laws generally prohibit disclosure absent a valid patient authorization, courts can order disclosure after following the required procedure and making certain findings. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) recently released new and revised forms that are structured to provide the court access to CCA’s while complying with the requirements of federal confidentiality laws. This post explains why and how to use the new and revised forms.
We wish we were singing Hello Dolly but, as you may have heard, Dolly Whiteside, longtime Chief Special Counsel with the Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) retired on March 31 after FORTY-THREE YEARS of public service. In her work, Dolly focused primarily on civil commitment, incompetency, and guardianship matters. She has been a tireless advocate, not only for the people whose lives are at stake in those proceedings, but also for the hardworking and dedicated attorneys who represent them. Dolly has been a valued partner to our Public Defense Education team at the School of Government, always willing to lend her expertise and insight when answering legal questions and collaborating on countless educational programs over the years. We will miss her tremendously. Dolly, enjoy retirement—you have more than earned it—but please come back and say Hello.
As sad as we are to see Dolly go, we are equally excited about the appointment of Chad Perry as Chief Special Counsel at IDS. Chad spent close to a decade working as an assistant public defender in Durham County, where he represented clients charged with misdemeanors and felonies as well as clients in civil commitment and youth drug treatment courts. Chad also served as an attorney with the Office of the Inspector General and with the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. Most recently, Chad represented respondents in commitment hearings in Wake County for the Office of Special Counsel.
Recently, the School of Government offered a webinar on single protective arrangements and single transactions under G.S. 35A-1121, which was enacted into law by Session Law 2021-53 and applies to proceedings initiated on or after October 1, 2021. Meredith Smith and Timothy Heinle of the School of Government joined Catherine Wilson, an attorney with McPherson, Rocamora, Nicholson, Wilson & Hinkle, PLLC, and Matt Kraus, legal counsel with the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, to discuss some of the key questions and issues raised by this new law. Clerks of superior court, guardian ad litem attorneys, private attorneys, and directors, attorneys, and social workers from various departments of social services across the state participated in the webinar.
A recording of the webinar can be found here, where the presentation can be viewed for free. In the coming weeks, the video will be added to the online training library for the SOG’s Public Defense Education group, which will offer the option of purchasing access to the webinar for CLE credit.
In the last two years, the North Carolina Supreme Court has published two opinions that answer questions raised about whether a North Carolina district court has personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of a parent who lives outside of North Carolina. Both opinions are cases of first impression. Both opinions held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the respondent parent. One opinion held the district court also had subject matter jurisdiction in the TPR action. Both opinions affirmed the challenged TPR orders. Both opinions overturn previous court of appeals opinions on the issues raised. Here’s what you need to know.
Although the vocabulary of preclusion can be convoluted, the core concept is not: preclusion prevents relitigation of matters that have already been decided. The doctrine is intended to protect both […]
Today is GiveUNC, the University’s annual day of giving. As Dean Mike Smith is set to step down as Dean at the end of this year, today we are celebrating […]
Today is GiveUNC, the University’s annual day of giving. As Dean Mike Smith is set to step down as Dean at the end of this year, today we are celebrating […]
The Juvenile Code requires the court to select the most appropriate disposition for the delinquent juvenile. G.S. 7B-2501(c). Under this statute, the disposition must be designed to protect the public and to meet the needs and best interests of the juvenile based on offense severity, the need for accountability, the importance of protecting public safety, the juvenile’s degree of culpability, and the rehabilitative and treatment needs of the juvenile. There are many different statutory pathways available to the court to structure individualized dispositions targeted to meet the needs of the juvenile and reduce their risk of reoffending. This post explores some of those options, with an emphasis on alternatives outside of standard terms and conditions for probation or placement in out-of-home settings.