I wrote about the opinion in Green v. Carter, 900 S.E.2d 108 (N.C. App., March 19, 2024), in this post: https://civil.sog.unc.edu/an-unmarried-partner-with-joint-legal-and-physical-custody-is-not-a-parent-and-cannot-be-ordered-to-pay-child-support/ The court of appeals held that the partner of the biological mother of a child (Green) could not be ordered to pay child support, even though she and the mother of the child (Carter) decided to have the child together while they were living together, agreed to the use of artificial insemination with a sperm donor to create the child, and held themselves out as the “parents” of the child for years until their romantic relationship ended. The partner (Green) was granted joint legal and physical custody of the child after a trial court concluded that the biological mother (Carter) had waived her constitutional right to exclusive custody by holding the partner out as the child’s co-parent and by intentionally allowing the partner to develop this parent-like relationship with the child without indicating the relationship was not a permanent one. But when the trial court determined that the partner should pay child support, the court of appeals reversed, citing G.S. 50-13.4 and stating: “[b]ased on long-established North Carolina law, … [a person] cannot be required to pay child support unless she is the child’s mother or father or has agreed formally, in writing, to pay child support.”
Continue Reading-
-
2024 HIPAA Final Rule: The New Attestation Requirement
This post is written by my colleague, Kirsten Leloudis, who works in the area of public health. Her contact information is below.
On June 25, 2024, changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule aimed at supporting reproductive health care privacy went into effect. Last week, I published a blog post about these changes, including the creation of three new types of prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI). This post addresses another major change to the law: a new attestation requirement that applies to four types of uses and disclosures when the PHI at issue is “potentially related” to reproductive health care. It’s not just covered entities and business associates that need to understand this new requirement- judicial officials, law enforcement, health oversight agencies, and medical examiners who frequently request PHI to carry out their official duties will likely encounter situations that require them to comply with the new attestation requirement, too. Continue Reading
-
Child Advocacy Centers, Child Medical Evaluations, and Multidisciplinary Team Information Sharing: New Law Goes into Effect on July 1
Across North Carolina, there are 55 child advocacy centers (CACs) providing services to children who have experienced maltreatment, including physical or sexual abuse. County departments of social services and local law enforcement agencies often coordinate with CACs to conduct child medical evaluations and forensic interviews in investigations of child maltreatment. On July 1, 2024, a new law goes into effect that regulates CACs, creates new mandatory multidisciplinary teams involving CACs (with statutorily prescribed membership requirements), authorizes information sharing between members of a CAC multidisciplinary team, and provides new confidentiality protections for a child’s CAC records and information. Read on to learn more about how Session Law 2023-96 affects cases referred to a CAC by departments of social services or law enforcement agencies.
Continue Reading -
The Court’s Obligation to Determine Disposition in a Delinquency Matter
Is the court bound to order a certain disposition in a delinquency matter when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree to that disposition as part of an agreement? The short answer is no. The Juvenile Code requires the court to engage in certain procedures, to consider certain factors, and to order disposition in accord with certain parameters when developing and ordering a delinquency disposition. The mandates on the court cannot be delegated to the parties and they are not optional. This post describes these mandates and explores the implications for dispositional outcomes that are agreed upon by the juvenile and the prosecutor. Continue Reading
-
The School Is Hiring for a Teaching Assistant Professor for Civil Procedure, Trials, and Contested Hearings
I absolutely love my job. As a faculty member at the School of Government, I get to work with smart, dedicated, fun colleagues; focus on a subject area I am passionate about; create wonderful relationships with the professionals I teach; and be part of an institution that has helped North Carolina for more than 90 years. The School of Government is unique; there aren’t other Schools like this in the country. The School provides public service to the state of North Carolina by helping local and state officials do their jobs and do them well. Faculty members do this in three main ways: advising, teaching, and writing. Our philosophy is to provide engaged scholarship, meaning we provide practical resources for regular use by the officials we serve. We are responsive to the issues that professionals identify through our teaching, writing, and advising. Amazingly, we get thanked daily. For teaching, we have the opportunity to create informed, practical programs that not just teach the subject matter but incorporate methodologies to use that can improve practice. For example, I just created and administered a two-day course on termination of parental rights for district court judges, and a focus throughout the course addressed employing trauma-informed practices not just for the families but for the attorneys, judges, clerks, and bailiffs who are in the courtroom during these challenging hearings.
Is this the type of job that sounds like something you, or someone you know, would not only enjoy but would be great at? If so, keep reading. Continue Reading
-
Disposition Continuance to Provide for Time in Secure Custody Not Allowed
Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024). The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Continue Reading
-
Accidents Happen, But Who’s Responsible? Understanding Vicarious Liability in Negligence Cases
Recently, I had the pleasure of teaching “Introduction to Small Claims Court” to a group of magistrates who turned out to be actors in disguise. The course culminated in a series of mock trials involving summary ejectment, breach of contract, recovery of personal property, conversion, and negligence. While the mock trials provided an entertaining way to review small claims procedure and the substantive law, the negligence case raised some interesting questions on vicarious liability.
Continue Reading -
Equitable Distribution: Stipulation in a Pretrial Order Makes Revocable Trust a Necessary Party
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently voided an entire equitable distribution judgment because the trial court denied a motion to add as a party a revokable trust alleged to be a necessary party, even though the motion was made more than three months after the conclusion of the equitable distribution trial. In Wenninger v. Wenninger, decided May 7, 2024, the appellate court held that the equitable distribution judgment was void for lack of a necessary party because the parties in the equitable distribution proceeding stipulated that items of property titled in the name of the trust were marital property, even though the trial court refused to distribute the items because they were not owned by either party.
Continue Reading -
What is the Maximum Commitment Period That Must be Noticed at Disposition in a Delinquency Case?
When the court issues an order of disposition committing a juvenile to a youth development center (YDC), that commitment is almost always required to be for an indefinite period of time that lasts at least six months. G.S.7B-2513(a). The court cannot order an end date for these commitments. However, the court is required to determine the maximum period the juvenile may remain committed before an extension would have to be filed or the juvenile must be released, and to notify the juvenile of that determination at the time disposition is ordered. G.S.7B-2513(a4). How should this maximum period of commitment be calculated? And is every commitment eligible for an extension? This post addresses these questions. Continue Reading
-
Medical Appointments, Consents, and Children in DSS Custody
In North Carolina, a juvenile who is the subject of an abuse, neglect, or dependency petition may be placed in the custody of a Department of Social Services (DSS). When DSS has a court order of custody, it places a child outside of the child’s home, often in a licensed foster home or in the home of a relative or other placement provider. Here at the School of Government (SOG), we are often asked whether North Carolina law authorizes foster parents (or the child’s placement providers) to consent to health services for the children in DSS custody who are placed in providers’ homes. Spoiler: the answer is “no.” If foster parents or placement providers cannot consent to medical care for the children in their home, must the person whose consent is required (e.g., a DSS caseworker) attend and give consent at every appointment for every child who is in DSS custody? This blog post, co-authored by SOG faculty Kirsten Leloudis and Sara DePasquale, addresses these questions. Continue Reading