The Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (JJRA), which raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to include youth who commit offenses at ages 16 and 17, went into effect on December 1, 2019. What impacts have been realized in the juvenile justice system as a result? The Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee (JJAC), created by the JJRA, submitted its required interim report to the General Assembly on January 15, 2021. The report provides many details about the first year of implementation as well as JJAC recommendations for legislative amendments and ongoing budgetary needs. This blog provides a summary of some of the trends during the first year of raise the age implementation as detailed in the report. Continue Reading
-
-
School of Government seeks new faculty member to specialize in civil trials and contested hearings
The UNC School of Government seeks to hire a tenure-track faculty member who will specialize in the procedural law that governs civil court actions and the practical aspects of conducting civil trials and contested hearings. Public officials, rather than degree-seeking students, are the principal audience for the School’s work. This position will be responsible for educating judicial officials (including judges, magistrates, and clerks of court), other court system actors, and state public officials on the law of North Carolina related to civil trials and contested hearings, including, for example, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, contempt, recusal and judicial immunity, attorney fees, execution and other post-judgment process, and appellate procedure.
Continue Reading -
Court of Appeals rules that denying domestic violence protection to persons in same-sex dating relationships is unconstitutional
**After this entry was posted, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in M.E. v. T.J. and left the holding of the Court of Appeals regarding same-sex dating relationships undisturbed. M.E. v. T.J., _ N.C. _ (March 11, 2022), affirming as modified, 275 N.C. App. 528 (2020).
In this post on August 15, 2017, DVPOs for Same-Sex Dating Relationships?, my former colleague Jeff Welty discussed the constitutionality of G.S. 50B-1(b)(6) in light of recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court addressing the rights of same-sex couples and in light of a South Carolina appellate court ruling that providing domestic violence protection to persons in heterosexual dating relationships while denying protection to persons in same-sex dating relationships is unconstitutional. Like the South Carolina statute, N.C.G.S. 50B-1(b)(6) provides that while persons of the opposite sex in a dating relationship are eligible for a DVPO, persons of the same sex in a dating relationship are not eligible for protection. On December 31, 2020, in M.E. v. T.J., the North Carolina Court of Appeals held this provision unconstitutional as applied to deny a plaintiff protection from domestic violence simply because plaintiff and defendant had been in a same-sex dating relationship rather than a heterosexual relationship.
Continue Reading -
Extensions and Modifications of Emergency Directives from the Chief Justice
Last night, I sat in a church parking lot, masked and socially distant, listening to live Christmas carols. It is still hard to get my head around all the ways the pandemic is changing our day to day lives. From smaller things like services in parking lots to larger things like the postponing of court proceedings across the state to unimaginable things like saying a final goodbye to loved ones via FaceTime. At the start of 2020, I am not sure anyone could have imagined this is how the year would end. But here we are.
Continue Reading -
Summary Ejectment in the time of COVID, Part 2: The CDC Order and EO 171
Over the last several months, both federal and state governments have issued orders, effective until December 31, placing temporary restrictions on residential evictions. As everyone knows, many tenants have lost their jobs and thus their ability to pay the rent when it’s due. At a time when Stay Home! signs are everywhere, billboards are a common sight, the prospect of large numbers of tenants either moving in with relatives or friends or becoming homeless raises serious public health concerns. The result has been a hodgepodge of emergency measures enacted by local, state, and federal governments. The interpretation and implementation of these measures has, not surprisingly, been challenging for the court system.
Continue Reading -
COVID-19, Local Action, & Civil Issues: Sharing Information from Our SOG Colleagues
For those who know me, I have been referring to 2020 as the lost year. We have lost so much – lives, family time, social gatherings, routines, and our general way of life. Some of these changes are permanent, like the loss of those we love who have died, and others are temporary albeit longer than many of us initially thought and planned for. As this calendar year approaches its end, the COVID-19 numbers are increasing. State and local entities continue to issue protective measures. Questions about the implementation of those measures have arisen. This week, two of my colleagues have written blog posts for the School’s Coates’ Canons blog discussing remedies, including whether civil penalties may be imposed, for violations of state or local orders. I am sharing those posts with you here.
Continue Reading -
Appointment of Attorneys in Juvenile Transfer Cases
How does the appointment of counsel to represent juveniles with cases that are transferred to superior court for trial as adults work? This can be a confusing question to answer given that the legal authority for the appointment of counsel changes at the time of transfer, there are important immediate legal issues following transfer, and there are so many different ways in which indigent defense services are provided across North Carolina. This blog will (1) identify the law that governs appointment of counsel when cases are in juvenile court and following transfer, (2) share recently released guidance from the N.C. Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) regarding appointment of counsel in matters that are transferred, and (3) suggest a procedure that could be followed to ensure that the rights of juveniles regarding appeals of transfer orders and conditions of pretrial release are ensured. Continue Reading
-
Child Custody: We Can’t “Change Venue” to Another State; Determining NC is an inconvenient forum
**This is a post from October 28, 2016 that I decided to post again, with a couple of appellate case updates, due to the frequency with which I receive questions about this procedure.
I received a call once from a clerk of court asking what she should do with a voluminous court file received in the mail from a court in another state. It was a large box containing all of the pleadings, motions, reports and other filings for a custody case that had been litigated in another state for several years, accompanied by a court order signed by a judge in that other state “transferring venue” of the case to North Carolina, citing as authority that state’s version of the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (the “UCCJEA”).
Continue Reading -
In Search of Youth Voice: Were You or Someone You Know Involved with Juvenile Court in N.C.?
Much of our work at the School of Government is focused on creating educational materials for professionals who work in North Carolina’s juvenile court—especially judges and attorneys. We want to share the voices of those who are affected the most – the juveniles. Assistant Professor Jacqui Greene and I are starting a video project to give voice to the experience of juveniles who have been involved in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems. This post provides some information on what we hope to do and how to contact us if you or someone you know is interested in participating. Continue Reading
-
Domestic violence protective orders: when is a stepparent acting in loco parentis?
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