Recent blog posts - 37 of 69

North Carolina now sits ten months away from implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (JJRA), widely referred to as “Raise the Age.” I had the opportunity to attend a summit hosted by Justice Initiatives in Charlotte last week focused on readiness for raise the age implementation. The recent report from the Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee (JJAC) is full of information about what still needs to be done for optimal implementation. The recommendations contain two major themes: provide legislative fixes to avoid unintended consequences and fully fund the new system.

I am excited to announce our new listserv for appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) attorneys in G.S. Chapter 35A adult guardianship cases. This new listserv administered by the School of Government is available for guardian ad litem (GAL) attorneys appointed in G.S. Chapter 35A adult guardianship proceedings across North Carolina.

While there are no doubt numerous ex parte custody orders entered by North Carolina courts daily throughout the state, there is very little appellate guidance regarding the circumstances under which such orders are appropriate and regarding the procedure that should be followed after such an order has been entered. Because these orders are interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal, we probably never will have much case law to direct us.

READ POST "What the law says about ex parte custody orders (February 15, 2019)"

After teaching and advising magistrates about landlord-tenant law for a little more than a decade, I’ve become familiar with their most common errors – which have, somewhat discouragingly, remained pretty […]

A guardian of the estate for any unemancipated minor may be appointed under G.S. Chapter 35A to receive and administer property on the minor’s behalf.  G.S. 35A-1221; G.S. 35A-1251; G.S. […]

Last week the Court of Appeals breathed new life into a decades-old law that requires district courts to refer juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent, prior to disposition, to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director for an interdisciplinary evaluation if any evidence that the juvenile is mentally ill has been presented. This new decision, In the Matter of E.M., __ N.C.App. __ (January 15, 2019), raises many questions like, does it really mean any evidence of mental illness? And does it matter if the juvenile has already received mental health services? And who is the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director anyways?

In December, the School of Government held the first week of orientation for new district court judges. The class included thirty-one new judges. Most of the judges took the bench […]

Pursuant to GS 50-13.4(c1), the North Carolina Conference of Chief District Court Judges recently reviewed the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines. The Chief Judges considered comments and information from judges, attorneys, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts in the form of a report from the national Center for Policy Research, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the North Carolina Bar Association, and the public during a public hearing held on June 7, 2018. Following this review, the Chief Judges updated the Schedule of Basic Support Obligations to reflect current tax rates, the most recent Consumer Price Index and the current federal poverty level. In addition, the Chief Judges made a few revisions to the substantive provisions of the Guidelines discussed below.

In 2015, I wrote two blog posts summarizing the law relating to the use of contempt to enforce orders to pay support. No Default Judgment in Contempt (May 1, 2015) and Contempt: Establishing Ability to Pay (May 8, 2015). Recent appellate opinions justify revisiting this topic.

READ POST "No Contempt for the Nonpayment of Money Without Actual Evidence of Ability to Pay (December 5, 2018)"

Dispositional decision making in delinquency cases can be complex. A list of 24 dispositional alternatives are available pursuant to G.S. 7B-2506. The choice among them must be driven by the disposition level allowed by G.S. 7B-2508 and the five factors outlined in G.S. 7B-2501(c). How much information must a court consider in making this decision and what findings need to be in an order of disposition? That question was not clearly answered until May of 2018.