A heightened level of service is required on a respondent to an incompetency proceeding in North Carolina.  G.S. 35A-1109 requires copies of the petition (SP-200) and the notice of hearing (SP-201) to be personally served on the respondent (the alleged incompetent adult).  As my colleague, Ann Anderson, discussed in an earlier post, because the use of private process servers is very limited in North Carolina, personal service is completed on the respondent by the sheriff in most cases.  Under the version of G.S. 35A-1109 in effect prior to May 4, 2020, service was not proper if the notice and petition were sent by FedEx, UPS, or regular mail or left with a family member at the respondent’s home or with a caregiver at a facility where the respondent resides. This heightened requirement of service on the respondent ensures that the respondent knows of the proceeding and knows the location, date, and time of the hearing. It reflects the significant impact an adjudication of incompetency has on a person’s rights to make decisions about his or her life and property. Continue Reading

From the North Carolina Family Court Advisory Commission:

To provide guidance to families with existing Chapter 50 custody and/or visitation orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, commonly referred to as the novel coronavirus, the Family Court Advisory Commission issues the following recommendations, which were approved by Chief Justice Cheri Beasley on April 13, 2020. The goal of these recommendations is to encourage the parties to follow their parenting plan and/or custody order as closely as possible to ensure a level of consistency and stability that is in the best interest of the child(ren). Families should work together to ensure the best interest of the child(ren) while also following the advice of their healthcare provider(s).

As we all come to terms with the new reality of social distancing and a global pandemic, the potential health risks for youth and staff in secure custody settings is cause for concern. Staff in a New York City juvenile detention center have already tested positive for COVID-19. The North Carolina Department of Public Safety has suspended visitation and volunteer activities at all juvenile justice facilities. Currently legal visits for juveniles in secure custody are still allowed. These heightened concerns about secure confinement of youth raise questions about whether and how ongoing secure custody hearings can happen in our current environment and what alternatives exist to both preserve public safety and prevent use of the congregate juvenile detention setting as much as possible.  This blog will discuss when hearings on continued secure custody must be held, even in light of the emergency directive; important considerations if those hearings are conducted remotely; and the range of release options available to the court. Continue Reading

These are not usual times for North Carolina, the U.S., or the world given the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In response to this pandemic, Chief Justice Beasley issued two Emergency Directives on Friday declaring that catastrophic conditions exist requiring changes to how the N.C. courts will operate. Yesterday, a clarifying memorandum was issued providing a “Coronavirus Update for Our Courts” (AOC Memo). These directives and other information may be accessed on the N.C. Judicial Branch website, which now has a page providing COVID-19 updates, here. This page also includes administrative orders issued by chief district court judges of judicial districts and how those individual districts are operating.

How does all this affect abuse, neglect, and/or dependency (A/N/D) court cases? A/N/D cases impact a parent’s paramount constitutional rights to care, custody, and control of their child. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (1997); In re R.R.N., 368 N.C. 167 (2015). Additionally, the Juvenile Code explicitly recognizes parents have constitutional rights that must be protected in these proceedings. G.S. 7B-100(1), -802. Emergency Directive 1 (paragraph 2) states that proceedings that are necessary to preserve the right to due process of law should continue to be held. Although the examples listed involve criminal proceedings, those examples do not exclude A/N/D actions where parents’ and children’s due process rights are affected. Continue Reading

Unless you are frequently immersed in mediation practice, you may have missed a recent renaming and overhaul of seven sets of rules governing court mediation in North Carolina.  The updates went into effect on March 1, 2020 after the North Carolina Supreme Court approved them in late January.  The bulk of the changes involve extensive reformatting, updates to titles and terminology, uniform phrasing and references, and incorporation of the specific names of relevant forms.  But in some of the sets there are also notable substantive changes or clarifications. In addition, to reflect the various amendments, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has updated many of its mediation-related forms.