Recent blog posts - 30 of 70

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 […]

With the work of the Governor’s Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice under way, it is timely to consider the issue of racial equity in the juvenile justice system. Issues of racial and ethnic disproportionality and disparity in juvenile justice have been discussed and studied in juvenile justice systems across the country for decades, as federal juvenile justice funding for states has long been tied to their study. See the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities page for more information on the federal requirement.

North Carolina’s most recent study, Disproportionate Minority Contact in North Carolina: An Assessment Study (hereinafter “Assessment Study”), funded by the Governor’s Crime Commission and authored by Stan Orchowsky, Ph.D. of Cambiare Consulting and Michael Leiber, Ph.D., and Chae Jaynes, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida, was released in June of 2019. The findings reveal that, while there is significant local variation across counties in North Carolina, youth of color are represented throughout the juvenile justice system in far greater numbers than they are represented in the general population. These disparities are most profound at the very front door of the juvenile justice system and at the deepest end of the system in secure confinement. They are also most profound for Black youth.

****UPDATE TO THIS POST: The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals discussed below. See Mucha v. Wagner, N.C. (August 13, 2021).   I wrote […]

S.L. 2019-168 amended GS 50B-7 to specify that “[a]ny subsequent court order entered supersedes similar provisions in protective orders issued pursuant to this Chapter.” The amendment applies to DVPOs in effect on or after December 1, 2019. Legislation was introduced during the last session of the NC General Assembly to narrow the category of superseding orders to only those orders entered in Chapter 50 And Chapter 110 cases, but neither bill was enacted. See SB 156 and HB 1097.

READ POST "Domestic Violence: Any New Court Order Supersedes an Existing DVPO. What Exactly Does that Mean? (August 5, 2020)"

**This post was written by Elizabeth Watkins Price, Associate Director of Curriculum and Administration, The North Carolina Judicial College, UNC Chapel Hill School of Government   Since its founding in […]

Many people assumed that the implementation of raise the age on December 1, 2019 meant the end of confinement of anyone under 18 in a jail. That was not the case. Even under our new legal framework for juvenile jurisdiction, some youth under 18 still have cases that are handled in criminal court from the very beginning. There is currently no legal mechanism to house these youth in a juvenile detention facility instead of a jail. This changes on August 1, 2020, when Part II of Session law 2020-83 takes effect.

In this previous post, Child Custody: Denying or Significantly Limiting a Parent’s Visitation (March 18, 2016), I wrote about a trial court’s authority to deny ‘reasonable’ visitation to a parent in a child custody proceeding between two parents. I mentioned in that post the conflict between two opinions from the NC Court of Appeals regarding whether a trial court must consider the constitutional rights of a parent before denying that parent reasonable visitation in such cases. Those two conflicting opinions are Moore v. Moore, 160 NC App 569 (2003)(because a complete denial of visitation is ‘tantamount to a termination of parental rights’, the trial court must apply the constitutional analysis set forth in Petersen and Price before reaching a decision about a child’s best interest) and Respess v. Respess, 232 NC App 611 (2014)(the constitutional analysis set forth in Petersen and subsequently clarified by Price v. Howard, 346 NC 68 (1997), applies in cases between a parent and a non-parent and has no application in custody cases between two parents).

READ POST "Child Custody: Denying Visitation to a Parent in a Case Between Parents (July 8, 2020)"