A plaintiff cannot obtain a Civil No-Contact Order pursuant to GS Chapter 50C against a defendant younger than 16 years of age. GS 50C-1(7). There is no similar general restriction on the age of defendants for claims brought pursuant to GS Chapter 50B seeking a Domestic Violence Protective Order. So, for example, a plaintiff may seek Chapter 50B protection against a current or former household member who is 13 years old or against someone 15 years old with whom plaintiff has been in a dating relationship. See blog post, March 13, 2015, Minor Parties in 50B Cases.
Continue Reading-
-
NC Supreme Court Addresses ICWA for the First Time
In August, the North Carolina Supreme Court published its first opinion addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA): In re E.J.B., 375 N.C. 95 (2020). Specifically, the supreme court examined the history and purpose behind Congress’s enactment of ICWA and the notice requirements that apply when a trial court knows or has reason to know the child involved in the “child custody proceeding” is an “Indian child.”
What is ICWA? Why the quotation marks? What does the opinion say? How does the opinion impact practice? Continue Reading
-
Summary Ejectment in the Time of COVID, Part 1: The CARES Act
If you are a judicial official hearing summary ejectment actions right now, you have plenty to be confused about. I’ve recently received a number of inquiries from you asking why you’re still receiving CARES Act affidavits (CVM-207), since the eviction moratorium imposed by the Act expired in late July. The short answer is that the affidavit may contain useful information which continues to be relevant to your disposition of an SE case. In this blog post, I’ll explain what that information is and what you should do with it.
Continue Reading -
Satisfying Conditions of Pretrial Release When in Juvenile Detention
Two changes in the law have led to a new phenomenon—the need for youth under the age of 18 to satisfy conditions of pretrial release while being confined in a juvenile detention facility. First, the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (JJRA) raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction for offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 on or after December 1, 2019. The JJRA includes a broad mandatory transfer provision, requiring that many felony matters shift from juvenile to superior court jurisdiction. G.S. 7B-2200.5(a). When that happens, the rules of criminal procedure (including those governing pretrial release) apply rather than the rules for juvenile cases. Second, Part II of Session Law 2020-83 required that the few minors who continue to be processed as adults in the criminal system from the outset of their cases be held in juvenile detention instead of adult jails. The release of minors subject to criminal rather than juvenile jurisdiction is governed by the usual criminal process for setting and satisfying conditions for pretrial release. Those conditions sometimes require posting a bond. But juvenile detention facilities are not equipped to process bonds. So how does this work? This post will review the circumstances in which a youth confined in juvenile detention may need to post bond, the impediments to doing so, and potential ways to address those problems. Continue Reading
-
More on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
* Note, this post focuses solely on the application of the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act to Chapter 45 power of sale foreclosure proceedings. Many foreclosures and evictions of occupants from properties acquired through foreclosure, including pursuant to an order for possession under G.S. 45-21.29(k) (the subject of this post), remain subject to a federal moratorium due to the pandemic. This moratorium was recently extended through December 31, 2020. To read more about current federal and state limits imposed on foreclosure proceedings due to the pandemic, click here.
A borrower stops making his home mortgage payments. A lender files a power of sale foreclosure pursuant to G.S. Chapter 45 to foreclose the lien of the deed of trust. After title to the property is transferred to a new owner out of the foreclosure, an occupant remains on the property. The new owner of the property, also known as the successor in interest, files a petition with the clerk of superior court under G.S. 45-21.29(k) for an order for possession. The petition and other evidence provided by the petitioner meet requirements of subsection (k) but the petition also states the occupant is a bona fide tenant.* Continue Reading
-
“Sometimes You Just Need a Hug” – Virtual Visits Between Parents and Their Children
COVID-19 has changed every court in North Carolina in one way or another. In abuse, neglect, and dependency court, the most consistent concern I have heard from parent attorneys over the last few months has to do with COVID-19 fallout affecting visits between parents and their kids.
Suspension of Visits
Since the beginning of the coronavirus, many counties have made heavier or exclusive use of remote technology in lieu of in-person visits. For the people responsible for arranging or supervising visits during an epidemic, the upsides are obvious: for one, less face-to-face interaction means a lower chance of virus transmission. From DSS’ vantage point, virtual communications may be less taxing of resources and time.
Continue Reading -
It’s Time for a New SOG Cohort of Elder Abuse Multidisciplinary Teams
How does elder abuse show up in your community?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected how that abuse happens or how local professionals respond to it?
A new opportunity to address these concerns is opening up September 9th.The intent of the North Carolina Elder Protection Network is to connect, inform, and support our public professionals who are working together to find ways to prevent and respond to abuse of older adults.
Continue Reading -
Race and Ethnicity in Juvenile Justice: North Carolina’s Numbers
With the work of the Governor’s Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice under way, it is timely to consider the issue of racial equity in the juvenile justice system. Issues of racial and ethnic disproportionality and disparity in juvenile justice have been discussed and studied in juvenile justice systems across the country for decades, as federal juvenile justice funding for states has long been tied to their study. See the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities page for more information on the federal requirement.
North Carolina’s most recent study, Disproportionate Minority Contact in North Carolina: An Assessment Study (hereinafter “Assessment Study”), funded by the Governor’s Crime Commission and authored by Stan Orchowsky, Ph.D. of Cambiare Consulting and Michael Leiber, Ph.D., and Chae Jaynes, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida, was released in June of 2019. The findings reveal that, while there is significant local variation across counties in North Carolina, youth of color are represented throughout the juvenile justice system in far greater numbers than they are represented in the general population. These disparities are most profound at the very front door of the juvenile justice system and at the deepest end of the system in secure confinement. They are also most profound for Black youth. Continue Reading
-
Domestic Violence Protective Orders: sometimes phone calls to plaintiff in NC can establish ‘minimum contacts’
****UPDATE TO THIS POST: The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals discussed below. See Mucha v. Wagner, N.C. (August 13, 2021).
I wrote about personal jurisdiction requirements in Chapter 50B civil domestic violence protection cases in these two earlier blog posts: Domestic Violence: DVPOs Require Personal Jurisdiction, September 9, 2016 and Domestic Violence: More on Mannise and Personal Jurisdiction, September 16, 2016.
Continue Reading -
Domestic Violence: Any New Court Order Supersedes an Existing DVPO. What Exactly Does that Mean?
S.L. 2019-168 amended GS 50B-7 to specify that “[a]ny subsequent court order entered supersedes similar provisions in protective orders issued pursuant to this Chapter.” The amendment applies to DVPOs in effect on or after December 1, 2019. Legislation was introduced during the last session of the NC General Assembly to narrow the category of superseding orders to only those orders entered in Chapter 50 And Chapter 110 cases, but neither bill was enacted. See SB 156 and HB 1097.