BLOG
UPDATE (June 28, 2021): The federal moratorium on foreclosures and evictions from properties subject to foreclosure is extended for many loans. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that Fannie […]
The Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee (JJAC) met on May 15th. The meeting began with a presentation from William Lassiter, Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Justice. While the goal of the presentation was to provide data on trends since implementation of raise the age and the resulting resource needs, the presentation included information and data about juvenile justice system trends during this unprecedented pandemic. The data left me wondering—can changes in juvenile justice system utilization during the pandemic teach us lessons for the functioning of the system outside of a pandemic?
On June 2 Chief Justice Beasley’s order continuing pending actions – including actions for summary ejectment – will expire. While that expiration date may be extended, it seems more likely […]
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.
Last month I blogged about the one type of delinquency hearing for which remote proceedings are expressly authorized in statute—hearings on continued custody. This blog analyzes the legal and practical considerations for holding other types of delinquency proceedings through the use of audio and video technology. It will provide an overview of the authority to hold other delinquency proceedings remotely, discuss special considerations related to delinquency proceedings, and address what it all means for first appearances, probable cause hearings, transfer hearings, adjudication hearings, and dispositional hearings.
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 […]
The goal of this post is to identify key challenges facing Chapter 35A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Attorneys in the COVID-19 era and to propose strategies for addressing those challenges. […]
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.
UPDATE #3 (May 29, 2020): For more recent updates, refer to this blog post. UPDATE #2 (April 14, 2020): The Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court entered two […]
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.