Recent blog posts - 57 of 70

Before On the Civil Side existed, the story about NFL running back, Adrian Peterson, pleading no contest to a misdemeanor reckless assault charge for disciplining his 4-year old son with a switch was national news. I wrote about what I thought would happen to him here in NC for our Criminal Law Blog: Parental Discipline: When Is It Abuse and/or a Crime? Since I wrote that post, the NC Court of Appeals published its first opinions interpreting the definition of abuse as applied to a child protective case that says:

a child is abused when his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker uses or allows to be used cruel or grossly inappropriate procedures or devices to modify the child’s behavior.

G.S. 7B-101(1)c.

In other words, a child is abused when parental discipline goes too far.  How does a court determine whether a parent has gone too far?

On Tuesday of this week, the Court of Appeals in Pope v. Pope upheld a decision by a trial judge to set aside a DVPO pursuant to GS 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(5). The trial court concluded, and the court of appeals agreed, that evidence showing plaintiff clearly was no longer afraid of defendant established that “it was no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective application.”

READ POST "DVPO Can Be Set Aside When Victim is No Longer Afraid (May 20, 2016)"

A growing number of teens in NC and across the nation are facing criminal charges for sexting.

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about a Fayetteville case involving two teens charged with felony child pornography for sending naked selfies to each other. The teens in that case, a boyfriend and girlfriend, ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanors (disseminating harmful material to minors) and their cases will be dismissed if they successfully complete a one-year term of probation under a deferred prosecution agreement. New sexting cases are reportedly being investigated in Wake County at two separate high schools, one of which may involve extortion. Based on my recent advising requests, other counties are also dealing with sexting issues in their schools. The offending students often end up with felony charges, at least initially, for behavior which one recent study suggests is a fairly common practice among U.S. teens. The question is how should the state respond?

The NC Child Support Guidelines provide that the term gross income “includes income from any source” and the Court of Appeal s has held repeatedly that the term should be construed very broadly. See e.g. Spicer v. Spicer, 168 NC App 283 (2005)(even the pain and suffering component of a personal injury settlement is income) and Moore v. Onafowora, 208 NC App 674 (2010)(bonuses received on a regular basis are included as recurring income). Unlike many other states, the NC Guidelines even count nonrecurring and one-time lump sum payments as income.

In an unpublished opinion issued last week, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed a line of cases holding that gifts and ‘maintenance’ received from third parties also must be included as income. In Cumberland County v. Cheeks, May 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals held that BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) payments received by military personnel who do not live in government housing must be counted as income because the payments offset the living expenses of the service member.

READ POST "Child Support: Maintenance and Gifts Are Actual Income?? (May 13, 2016)"

Anyone who has ever been a juror in a civil trial probably remembers the judge’s repeated instructions not to talk to anyone about the case prior to deliberations, to avoid communications with parties, witnesses, and attorneys, to report to the bailiff when anyone tries to talk to a juror about the case, to avoid media coverage of the trial, to refrain from doing independent investigation (nope, not even casual Googling), and to base the verdict only on the evidence.  The whole point, of course, is to make the trial as fair as possible.  But what if a juror goes astray? When can a losing party get relief based on the juror’s misdeeds?

Rule 59 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure sets out nine categories of grounds for a new trial. Among them is Rule 59(a)(2), which in part allows a court to grant a new trial based on “misconduct of the jury.”  Yesterday in Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., the Court of Appeals assessed whether the trial judge should have ordered a new trial where,

Absolute divorce trials seldom, if ever, involve any sort of courtroom drama. Most of the time, these ‘trials’ involve one party coming to court to testify for less than 5 minutes or the attorney of one party coming to court to hand up a summary judgment for the judge to sign. Most requests for divorce are not contested – in large part because there generally are no defenses to divorce other than the failure to live separate and apart for one year.

So it is no wonder that some districts have decided to take the process of entering summary judgment divorce out of the courtroom. To save valuable court time, some districts have decided to adopt the practice of having judges enter summary judgment divorces after reviewing the pleadings in chambers. Notices are sent to the non-moving party stating that the summary judgment will be entered by the court on a specific date or at some point during a specific week. No actual hearing is held in the courtroom on the motion for summary judgment.

Is this okay?

READ POST "Does Summary Judgment Divorce Require a Hearing? (May 6, 2016)"

Betty is 75 years old and lives alone.   She was recently diagnosed with dementia.  Betty’s daughter, Pam, helps look after her mother and pay her monthly bills, but has noticed a decline in Betty’s memory and ability to communicate.  Upon reviewing Betty’s monthly bank statement, Pam noticed three large payments to companies Pam did not recognize.  After some investigation, Pam discovered that the drafts were the result of a telemarketer scam.  To stop future drafts, Pam went to the bank and asked them to close Betty’s account. However, the bank refused to close the account without Betty’s authorization and told Pam that she would need to obtain guardianship of Betty to be able to close the account.  Betty refused to consent to close the account as she was afraid Pam was trying to take too much control over her life.

Pam went online, did some research, and decided to seek interim guardianship of her mother so that she can quickly block the telemarketers from accessing her mom’s account.   What are some things Pam should keep in mind about interim guardianship before heading down to the courthouse?

Every other year the School of Government and Office of Indigent Defense Services hold a multi-day skills training for juvenile defenders in North Carolina. The first day of this year’s intensive training was held at the Guilford County Juvenile Detention Center in Greensboro, NC. The juvenile defenders first heard sessions on adolescent brain development by Dr. Ayesha Chaudhary, Forensic Psychiatrist at Duke University, and detention advocacy by Mitch Feld, Director of Children’s Defense at the Council for Children’s Rights. This set the stage for the tour of the facility and conversations with the youth.

With April recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month, it seemed fitting to write about North Carolina’s Responsible Individuals List (RIL). If you’re thinking “I’m a responsible person; I should be on that list,” you should know what makes a person a “responsible individual” for purposes of placement on the RIL. The definition is somewhat counterintuitive; a “responsible individual” is a parent, guardian, custodian or caretaker who has abused or seriously neglected a child. G.S. 7B-101(18a). If you are identified as a “responsible individual,” your name will be added to the statewide RIL, which is maintained by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. G.S. 7B-311(b).

Last September, I began a blog post with the following statement; “Beware. A child support or alimony order should never contain the word “capacity” or the words “ability to earn” unless it also contains the words ‘bad faith.’” Imputing Income: Voluntary Unemployment is Not Enough. On April 5, 2016, the court of appeals once again reminded us that this overly dramatic generalization of the law frequently proves true. Lasecki v. Lasecki is a great opinion to read for a review of the law relating to establishing and enforcing child support when parents have an unincorporated separation agreement and it is yet another statement by the court that we should never consider a parent’s capacity to earn at any stage of a child support proceeding unless we first determine that the parent is intentionally depressing income in deliberate disregard of a support obligation.

READ POST "And They Said It Again: Never Use Earning Capacity Without Bad Faith (April 22, 2016)"