In an earlier post about high-profile trials, I touched on a trial judge’s authority to restrict photos, audio, video, and broadcast of all or parts of an open court proceeding.  To sum it up, the court has broad discretion to restrict dissemination of the proceedings in order to protect the integrity of the process. And under the right circumstances someone who violates the court’s directive can be punished.

But what about another high-profile trial issue:  When may a judge prevent people from reporting on or talking publicly about the case?  Or punish a person for doing so? Continue Reading

When a city, county, or other unit of local government is sued for negligence or other torts, it’s common practice for the unit’s attorney to file a motion asking the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit based on the defense of governmental immunity. (See blog posts available here and here for an explanation of governmental immunity fundamentals.)  Many local government attorneys believe that, if the trial court denies such a motion, the unit always has the right to an immediate appeal.  As a recent decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals reminds us, however, whether the unit may immediately appeal can depend on how the immunity defense is framed in the motion.  This blog post aims to

Faith and Julie have been neighbors and friends for over twenty years.  They are both 75 years old and take daily walks together.  Julie was recently diagnosed with dementia.  Her daughter, Abby, lives a few hours away and is her general guardian, but rarely visits her mother.  Abby hired an in-home aide to assist Julie around the house.  When Faith tries to visit Julie during the day, the aide tells Faith that Julie is no longer up for visits from her or anyone else.  Faith noticed the aide often leaves for hours at a time during the day and locks Julie in the house while she is gone.  A mutual friend told Faith she recently saw Julie and the aide at an estate lawyer’s office and Julie mentioned she was changing her will.  Faith grows worried about Julie and calls Abby to express her concerns.  Abby is overwhelmed with stress in her own life and states that she trusts the aide, but will check in on her mother soon.  Faith doesn’t see Abby visit or any changes to the aide or the aide’s behavior.

In my previous posts, available here and here, I described elder abuse generally and how adult protective services (APS) through the county departments of social services and guardianship proceedings before the clerk of superior court can be tools to protect against elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation (hereinafter, referred to as “abuse”).  However, just because someone has a guardian, it does not mean the risks of such abuse are eliminated.  In fact, guardians, such as Abby, often create circumstances for such abuse by leaving the adult in vulnerable positions and failing to monitor the adult’s care.  In addition, guardians may be the source of such abuse by taking advantage of and exploiting the authority they are given.  One recent report commissioned by the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging examined such abuse by guardians after growing concern of abusive practices by guardians.  The study concluded the extent of such abuse is unknown nationally due to limited data but there is some evidence that financial exploitation by a guardian is one of the most common types of elder abuse, which frequently includes the guardian overcharging for services that were either not necessary or never performed or misusing the adult’s money by incurring excessive dining and vehicle expenses.  See Elder Abuse Report, pg. 11 and 14.

The risk of the abuse of an adult under guardianship may be mitigated by (i) court screening of potential guardians through criminal and financial background checks and guardian training or certification requirements, and (ii) court oversight after a guardian is appointed through the filing with the court of status reports, which are reports on the care, comfort, and maintenance of the adult, and accountings, which are reports on the financial affairs of the adult. Even with effective screening and oversight, abuse may still occur when someone has a guardian.

So, what steps may someone, like Faith, who is concerned about abuse of someone under guardianship either by the guardian or a third-party take to protect the adult?   Continue Reading

Landlords often encounter a frustrating situation when they file a lawsuit for eviction and past due rent, resulting, ironically, from the interaction of two laws intended to benefit landlords. First, GS 42-29 requires the sheriff to expedite service of process by mailing the tenant the complaints and summons “as soon as practicable.” Within the next five days, and at least two days before the trial, the officer must visit the tenant’s home to attempt personal service. If no one answers the door when the officer knocks, the second special rule for summary ejectment cases kicks in, allowing the officer to simply post the summons and complaint on the door. Such “service by posting” allows the trial to go forward even though the tenant has not been personally served.

Continue Reading

Since the initial publication of this post, the Governor signed H362. This post was amended on July 31, 2017 to reflect that change and reference the session law.

The 2017 Legislative Session created and amended various statutes affecting child welfare. Some of those changes are effective now and others will become effective at later dates. This post highlights those amendments that directly impact practice in abuse, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights actions. A more complete summary of the numerous legislative changes can be found on the School of Government website, here.  Continue Reading