The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. This protection applies to state court criminal actions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also applies to juvenile proceedings because of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Simply put, the right to confrontation allows juveniles to face their accusers in court and dispute their testimony through cross-examination. It allows juveniles to challenge the state’s evidence and protects them from the improper admission of certain testimonial hearsay under Crawford. This post explains a juvenile’s right to confront and cross examine witnesses and how far it extends in juvenile court.
-
-
Season Two of Beyond the Bench, “Homelessness, Neglect, and Child Welfare in North Carolina,” Launches This Week!
Beyond the Bench
For those of you who aren’t in the know, earlier this year the School of Government’s Judicial College started a podcast, Beyond the Bench. A podcast is essentially a radio show that you can get on the internet, so you can listen any time you want. “Beyond the Bench” is about the North Carolina court system and features interviews with interesting people who work in the courts. Our first season was hosted by my colleague, Jeff Welty, and focused on criminal law.
Season Two: Homelessness, Neglect, and Child Welfare in North Carolina
I am the host of Season Two, which focuses on neglect and the child welfare system with a particular emphasis on homelessness. Through six episodes, you will hear about family homelessness in North Carolina, whether homelessness is neglect and requires a report to a county child welfare (or social services) department under North Carolina’s mandated reporting laws, and the different stages of a child welfare case. Each episode discusses a different stage in a child welfare case and includes the various voices and perspectives of the people involved. Those voices include homeless shelter staff, county department social workers and attorney, the children’s guardian ad litem, a parent attorney, and district court judges. Continue Reading
-
Child Custody: We Can’t “Change Venue” to Another State
I received a call once from a clerk of court asking what she should do with a voluminous court file received in the mail from a court in another state. It was a large box containing all of the pleadings, motions, reports and other filings for a custody case that had been litigated in another state for several years, accompanied by a court order signed by a judge in that other state “transferring venue” of the case to North Carolina, citing as authority that state’s version of the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (the “UCCJEA”).
Does the UCCJEA allow a judge to transfer a custody case to another state? When that clerk received the file and the order from the other state, is the North Carolina court required to act in the custody proceeding?
-
Due Process Rights and Children: Fifty Years of In re Gault – Part Three, the Right to Notice
The right to receive “notice” of a criminal charge or other alleged misconduct is considered to be one of the core requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although due process requirements vary depending on the circumstances, at a minimum, a person is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before suffering a loss of life, liberty, or property by the government. In re D.B., 186 N.C. App. 556, 564 (2007). This basic protection was not afforded to juveniles prior to In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), which extended due process rights to children. Why is notice so important? When must notice be given? How much notice is required? These questions and others are answered in this third post in a series about Gault’s role in protecting the rights of juveniles in delinquency proceedings over the past fifty years.
-
UAGPPJA is Here to Stay
I’ve been spending a lot of my time recently focused on the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA; pronounced, “you-ah-gap-jah”). UAGPPJA is a uniform law enacted by the NC General Assembly during this past legislative session as S.L. 2016-72. I previously discussed an earlier version of the bill in a blog post available here. The law creates a new G.S. Chapter 35B and applies to incompetency and adult guardianship proceedings under G.S. Chapter 35A. It does not apply to minor guardianships under Article 6 of G.S. Chapter 35A.
Continue Reading -
Small Claims Mailbox: Questions from Magistrates about Service of Process
Service of process in small claims cases, like many other small claims procedures, requires reference to North Carolina’s Rules of Civil Procedure (GS 1A-1) as modified by GS Ch. 7A, Art. 19 (Small Claims Actions in District Court). In today’s blog post, I’m going to explore that law by sharing some (lightly edited) email inquiries I’ve received from magistrates over the last few years. But first, a quick overview of why we care so much about service of process.
Continue Reading -
So You Want to be a District Court Judge
A few election seasons ago, a campaign sign advocating “Denning for Judge” was posted in our neighborhood. My son noticed it on the way home from school and said, “Mom: Is Dad running for judge?” “No, he isn’t,” I said. Then, in a moment of pique, I said, “Actually, your dad isn’t qualified to be a judge. But I am.” Since I’ve obviously done such a great job teaching civics (and equal rights) to my children, I thought I’d share a bit with you about the selection, qualifications, and work of a North Carolina district court judge—a group of judicial officials with whom I frequently work.
-
Public Official Immunity and Intentional Torts – A New Publication Available
Issues of governmental immunity and public official immunity arise relatively often in North Carolina appellate opinions. Within this important area of the law, however, there remain challenging questions. Among them is this: Does public official immunity ever shield North Carolina public officials from personal liability for intentional torts, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution? School of Government faculty member Trey Allen recently took on this question. His new Local Government Law Bulletin, Do Intentional Tort Claims Always Defeat Public Official Immunity?, includes an in-depth examination of existing case law with a discussion of malice in the context of intent, and closes with a proposed framework for analysis of future cases. If, like me, you could simply use a primer on public official immunity, the bulletin starts with that. And at the end there’s a handy list of which public official positions are eligible for immunity and which are not. (Examples: Superintendent of County Schools – yes. School bus driver – no). Check out the bulletin (it’s free!) here.
Continue Reading -
The Magistrate’s Role in Filing Juvenile Delinquency and Undisciplined Petitions
Magistrates have limited authority to file juvenile petitions and enter custody orders related to delinquent and undisciplined juveniles. Specifically, a magistrate may “draw and verify the petition and accept it for filing,” in “emergency situations” when the clerk’s office is closed and “a petition is required in order to obtain a secure or nonsecure custody order.” G.S. 7B-1804. Recently, I was invited to discuss this statutory provision with magistrates at their annual fall conference. I had assumed that most magistrates rarely, if ever, file juvenile delinquency or undisciplined petitions and expected to finish the presentation early with few questions. To my surprise, I discovered that magistrates in some counties are routinely being asked to file after hours juvenile petitions and enter secure custody orders, and they had lots of questions. Since I ran out of time trying to answer them all, I decided to write this blog post.
-
Custody Orders Requesting Findings for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
A few weeks ago, I posted about the case of Zetino-Cruz v. Benitz-Zetino, NC App (August 16, 2016), in which the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in transferring venue sua sponte in a custody case. The opinion also mentions that, in addition to her request for custody, grandmother in that case also requested that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law that are prerequisites for the children’s application to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. The court of appeals resolved the case on the venue issue alone and did not address the request for the “extra” findings of fact or conclusions of law by grandmother.
This same request is being made in custody cases throughout the state with increasing frequency. So what is Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and what does it have to do with Chapter 50 custody cases?