Recent blog posts - 29 of 69

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.

**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 […]

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.

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 […]

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?

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 […]

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.

* 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.*

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 […]

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 […]