Recent blog posts - 26 of 70

As students across North Carolina head back to school, it is a good time to review the law that governs notifying schools about juvenile delinquency cases. Prior to raise the age, notification of charges for high school students required an understanding of the requirements under both the Juvenile Code for delinquency cases and the Criminal Code for cases in which students were accused of crimes committed at ages 16 and 17. Now,  under the post-raise the age statutory structure of juvenile jurisdiction, the Juvenile Code requirements will govern nearly all school notifications.

Here are the headlines:

• school notification can only be made by a juvenile court counselor to the school principal and under the specific circumstances outlined in the Juvenile Code, and
• the information disclosed must remain confidential and may only be used by the school in the limited way allowed for by the law.

The School of Government and the North Carolina Judicial College are excited to announce the addition of Emily Turner to the faculty. Emily joined the School in July 2021 and […]

The clerk of superior court, as the ex officio judge of probate in North Carolina, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of certain fiduciaries. See G.S. […]

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, laws that revise the Juvenile Code are being enacted. The most recent session law is S.L. 2021-100, which amends various provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes – the laws that relate to abuse, neglect, dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings. This blog summarizes the amendments made by “An Act to Make Revisions to the Juvenile Code Pursuant to Recommendations by the Court Improvement Program.”

G.S. 50-13.7(a) provides that “… an order … for the custody of a minor child may be modified or vacated at any time, upon motion in the cause and a […]

The Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act and its subsequent corresponding legislation raised the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18 for most offenses committed at ages 16 or 17 that would otherwise be crimes. S.L. 2017-57, §§ 16.D.4.(a)-16.D.4.(tt) and S.L. 2019-186. Last summer, the legislature enacted changes to the criminal law to ensure that minors who fall outside of raise the age and continue to be tried as adults are not housed in adult jails. S.L. 2020-83, §§ 8.(a)-8.(p).  While it may feel like these changes must mean that the age of 18 is now consistently the legal demarcation for being treated as an adult, the law continues to use the age of 16 as a defining line in some instances. For example, Chapter 50B (Domestic Violence) and Chapter 50C (Civil No-Contact Orders) continue to provide that domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) and Civil No-Contact Orders can be obtained against youth once they reach the age of 16. This blog addresses how enforcement of these orders against youth who are ages 16 and 17 is affected by raise the age and by the removal of minors from jails.

Readers are probably aware that the CDC Eviction Moratorium has been extended until July 31, accompanied for the first time by a statement that it is unlikely to be further […]

Britney Spears and the details of her conservatorship—the California equivalent of incompetency and guardianship in North Carolina—have recently been front page news, leading people to reach out to me with questions. While the case is remarkable, in part because of Ms. Spears’ fame and the massive amounts of wealth involved, the themes and central issues are familiar to those who handle these types of cases. Allegations of abuses of power, bitter family disputes, and pleas for autonomy and a return to normalcy, are not uncommon in incompetency and guardianship proceedings. Still, there are important lessons in Ms. Spears’ case for attorneys who handle guardianship work in North Carolina, including guardian ad litem attorneys in Chapter 35A proceedings.

READ POST "The Conservatorship of Britney Spears and a Ward’s Right to Petition for Restoration of Competency (July 7, 2021)"

Recently, in Kincheloe v. Kincheloe, _ N.C. App. _ (June 15, 2021), the North Carolina Court of Appeals engaged in a lengthy discussion of the law relating to the entry of orders that deviate from the Child Support Guidelines, giving me an excuse to post this short review of that law. To summarize at the beginning of my post rather than at the end, there are two key points to keep in mind when entering child support orders. First, any provision in an order that contradicts or is different than the specific terms or instructions in the Guidelines constitutes a deviation, and second, any deviation must be supported with detailed findings of fact regarding the reasonable needs of the children and the relative ability of the parents to pay support.   

My email continues to stay busy with confusion about juvenile cases, including questions about the status of a case during the time for appeal of an order transferring the case to superior court and the use of an indictment to trigger transfer of a juvenile matter to superior court. This blog will address three frequently asked questions (FAQs): (1) which court has jurisdiction over the case during the 10-day period for giving notice of an appeal, (2) what are the restrictions on recordkeeping during that 10-day period or while the superior court considers any appeal, and (3) may an order for arrest be generated when an indictment is returned in a matter that is under juvenile jurisdiction?