Recent blog posts - 63 of 69

All civil child support orders must order the child’s parent or other responsible party to provide health insurance for the child if it is available at a reasonable cost. GS 50-13.11(a1). If coverage is not available at a reasonable cost when the support order is entered, the court must order that health insurance be obtained when it becomes available at a reasonable cost. Recent legislation changes how we determine whether insurance is available at a reasonable cost and the 2015 Child Support Guidelines have been amended to reflect the change.

READ POST "Child Support: When is Health Insurance Available at a Reasonable Cost? (September 11, 2015)"

Last week, a local news outlet reported that the 17-year-old quarterback of a Cumberland County high school was benched when school officials learned he was under investigation for allegedly sending “sexually explicit” photos of himself to his 16-year-old girlfriend. According to the report, officers took the teenager’s phone while investigating another incident and discovered photos of himself and his girlfriend on the phone. Now, both the teenager and his girlfriend are facing charges for “sexting” in what appears to have been a consensual exchange of nude photos between two teens in a dating relationship. Judging by the string of harsh comments to this report (which use various derogatory words to describe the charges), many people are outraged that such behavior, while improper, is a crime. Instead, they suggest that the behavior is a discipline issue that should be privately addressed by parents at home. In response to these concerns, this post examines the criminal laws in NC that possibly cover sexting and discusses their application to minors.

The General Assembly has amended the rule of procedure in civil cases for discovery of information about another party’s expert witness.  North Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) has largely been […]

This post was amended to reflect changes made to the definition of caretaker that occurred after the post was published by section 1 of S.L. 2015-123* (effective January 1, 2016) and Section 12C.1.(d). of S.L. 2016-94, effective July 1, 2016**  

In North Carolina, abuse, neglect, and dependency cases determine the child’s status as abused, neglected, or dependent by examining the child’s circumstances rather than determining the fault or culpability of a parent. In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101 (1984). In determining a child’s status, social services agencies and trial courts must look at the statutory definitions of abuse, neglect, and dependency. G.S. 7B-101(1), (15), (9). These definitions require the social services agencies and courts to determine who created the child’s circumstances. In abuse and neglect cases, was it the child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker? In dependency cases, was it the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian? If the child’s circumstances were not caused by a parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker, the child is not abused, neglect, or dependent. A court order establishes the relationship of guardian [G.S. 7B-600; G.S. 35A-1202 & Article 6] or custodian [G.S. 7B-101(8)] to a child, but who is a caretaker?

In Stancill v. Stancill, 773 SE2d 890 (NC App, June 16, 2015), the court of appeals held that a hearing on a request for an ex parte DVPO pursuant to […]

 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.

READ POST "Improper Delegation of Authority and Intermittent Confinement (August 26, 2015)"

This Post was written by Professor Michael Crowell, UNC School of Government.

The question about fines for civil contempt is now resolved. Just over a year after the court of appeals allowed the use of a fine for civil contempt the General Assembly stepped in to say no, fines are not allowed for civil contempt, the only sanction is confinement until the person complies with the court order. In doing so, the legislature restored the law to what most thought it was before the appellate court ruling.

READ POST "NO FINES FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT (August 21, 2015)"

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 […]

Defendant fails to answer the complaint on time, so plaintiff seizes the moment and obtains default judgment.  A party does not understand a notice of hearing, fails to attend, and […]

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 […]