Recent blog posts - 27 of 69

The last 14 months have encompassed a year like no other because of COVID-19. As a country, we have experienced unimaginable loss of life. In our own communities and lives, we have transitioned to a new normal – one that feels more like a sci fi movie plot than our actual reality. But, reality it has been. Thankfully, we appear to be slowly moving our way back to what was once familiar. As we live in this pandemic, laws responding to the impact of COVID 19 have been passed by Congress and our own state. At the end of December 2020, Congress passed a COVID relief bill – the Consolidated Appropriations Act. There are components of that Act that have been heavily reported on – the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits for example.

Did you know that same federal law imposed a moratorium on young adults aging out of extended foster care and modifies the eligibility terms for participation in that program? In North Carolina, that program is the Foster Care 18-21 Program. What does that mean for those young adults? Do you know a young adult who was terminated from the program this calendar year? They may opt back in.

Since January 1, 2019, termination of parental rights (TPR) orders are appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In August 2019, the Supreme Court published its first appellate opinions under this new TPR appellate procedure. Between August 2019 and today, the Supreme Court has decided 134 TPR opinions, all of which are published. Each of those published opinions from our state’s highest court established or reinforced a precedent. Perhaps because of that, new and old arguments have been raised before the Supreme Court in those TPR appeals. This post focuses on what the Supreme Court has held when addressing the dispositional stage of the TPR.

When does questioning of a middle school student by the principal and in the presence of the school resource officer (SRO) constitute a custodial interrogation? The Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued a decision last week, In re D.A.H. ___ N.C. App. ___, 2021-NCCOA-135 (April 20, 2021), that details the legal analysis necessary to answer this question. The decision reviews the unique characteristics and law related to schoolhouse questioning and identifies seven factors most relevant to determining whether a juvenile is in custody and three factors most relevant to determining whether questioning is an interrogation. The application of this analysis to the facts of the case offers an important takeaway—the legal analysis must focus on an objective reasonable child standard and not on a particular child’s subjective familiarity with an SRO who is regularly present in the school environment.

The UNC School of Government’s Public Defense Education group is excited to announce a new series of practice guides, The First Seven Days, by Timothy Heinle, Civil Defender Educator. The guides offer practical tips and strategies for respondent’s attorneys in various civil proceedings to use during the first several days of representation. The ideas suggested in the guides are designed to help busy attorneys hit the ground running in ways that reduce stress for the attorney and improve representation for the client.

The first entry in the series is The First Seven Days as a Guardian ad Litem in an Incompetency Proceeding. It includes ideas on creating files, client outreach, investigation tools, report writing, and more. Guardian ad litem attorneys in Chapter 35A proceedings can obtain the guide in three ways.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court order in Madar v. Madar, (Dec. 31, 2020), that required both parents to pay costs associated with their child’s […]

Chief Justice Paul Newby issued an order on Friday, effective today, extending emergency directives currently in place for an additional thirty days to in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. […]

Consider the common scenario in which a proceeding under Article 11 of G.S. Chapter 7B is filed to terminate a parent’s rights to their child. How and when an attorney is appointed for the respondent parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding (TPR), whether the attorney is provisional or confirmed, and how the attorney may withdraw, depends on a few factors. Ongoing confusion on these points has led to several appeals in recent years, including a new ruling by our Supreme Court. See In re K.M.W., 376 N.C. 195 (2020). This post reviews the governing principles under North Carolina case law and statutes.

Today is the annual GiveUNC day. This year is also the School’s 90th Anniversary! Although the faces have changed over time and the name of our School (from Institute of […]

In an opinion issued on March 16, 2021, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a trial court’s award of visitation to paternal grandparents pursuant to North Carolina’s grandparent […]

Chief Justice Paul Newby issued an order on Friday, effective today, extending emergency directives currently in place for an additional thirty days to in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Tomorrow marks […]