Last month, I wrote a blog post about the recently enacted Juvenile Code Reform legislation (S.L. 2015-58, HB 879), which creates several new laws affecting delinquent juveniles. The last section of the bill amends G.S. 7B-2506(12) and (20), which authorize intermittent confinement in a juvenile detention facility as a Level 1 or Level 2 dispositional alternative. Currently, the trial court must determine the timing of the intermittent confinement, but beginning December 1, 2015, it must also determine the imposition of the confinement. Although this change appears to be minor, it addresses a major issue related to juvenile dispositions – the improper delegation of the trial court’s authority, typically, to court counselors. Most of the calls I get about improper delegation of authority in juvenile court concern intermittent confinement, and particularly, how it is imposed. This post will examine how the new legislation was designed to address these concerns by changing the way district court judges impose intermittent confinement.

Continue Reading

All custody orders in cases between parents must allocate custody rights and responsibilities in a way that meets the best interest of the child. GS 50-13.2. “Custody” is a term that is not well-defined in North Carolina law but clearly refers to both physical care and control of a child as well as to the authority to make decisions regarding the child. Physical care and control is referred to as physical custody while decision-making authority is referred to as legal custody. GS 50-13.2(a) requires the court to consider “joint custody” whenever requested by a parent. What does joint legal custody mean? What can a court do when the parents simply cannot agree on whether little Johnny will play football or take piano?

My last post discussed the clerk of court’s role in determining whether a case is eligible for small claims court under the terms of the chief district court judge’s order of assignment (hereinafter, OA). This post addresses what happens when things go wrong: What options do court officials have when a case turns up on the small claims calendar that does not meet the requirements for assignment to small claims court?

We’ve now posted a handful of times about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) on this blog.  In particular, we’ve posted on the SCRA’s application to non-judicial foreclosures, juvenile proceedings, and family law cases.  At the risk of being told that the blog should be renamed “The SCRA and Other Civil Stuff,” I’m going to add another SCRA post to the list.  In my defense, over the course of the past few months I’ve received a number of questions regarding the applicability of the SCRA to proceedings before the clerk of superior court.  In particular, I’ve been asked whether the SCRA applies to incompetency proceedings filed under G.S. Chapter 35A for the purpose of obtaining a guardian for an alleged incompetent adult.  Here’s how I’ve answered the questions I’ve received:

When a litigant presents a complaint and asks that the case be heard in small claims court, a clerk has different responsibilities than when a plaintiff wishes to file any other sort of civil case. Those responsibilities are critically important, and failure to perform them correctly can lead to additional time and effort on the part of court officials, added expense and delay for litigants, and even judgments ultimately declared void. The source of these additional duties are several little-known statutory provisions in G.S. Ch. 7A, Art. 19, governing small claims procedure.