BLOG
I wrote recently about substantial upcoming changes to North Carolina’s child fatality prevention system. As part of those systemic changes in S.L. 2023-124, the General Assembly is establishing new Citizen […]
The Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) is a binding compact that establishes the law that governs the interstate movement of juveniles who are involved in the juvenile justice system. One of the purposes of the ICJ is to “[r]eturn juveniles who have… been accused of an offense to the state requesting their return.” G.S. 7B-4001(b)(3). This is akin to the extradition process used in criminal matters. The proper procedure to return a juvenile who is accused of an act of delinquency in another state to that other state is found in the ICJ rules. This post walks through the procedure.
For 94 years, the UNC School of Government has been the backbone of support for North Carolina’s public officials, from clerks and judges to budget analysts, municipal and county managers, newly elected officials, public defenders, and prosecutors. From Murphy to Manteo, we are here to ensure that those who serve our communities have the resources, training, and guidance they need to succeed. Today we are asking for your help to continue furthering this mission. Please watch this message from our Dean or read on to learn how you can be a spark in this effort.
North Carolina is one of a handful of jurisdictions that still follow the contributory negligence rule. In states where contributory negligence applies, if the plaintiff is even slightly at fault […]
G.S. 50B-3(b) provides that, if requested to do so before a current domestic violence protective order (DVPO) expires, the trial court can renew the order for good cause for an […]
Beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025, new laws are in effect regarding the standard and procedures for addressing juvenile capacity to proceed. The new statutes can be found in G.S. 7B-2401-2401.5. You can find blogs about the details of the new standard and procedures here and here. This major revision to the law of juvenile capacity to proceed required new court forms and a new process for credentialing juvenile forensic evaluators. This post details those new structures.
Tragically, 1,474 North Carolina children under the age of 18 died in 2022. According to the North Carolina Child Fatality Task Force’s 2024 Annual Report, the rate of child deaths […]
For most citizens in North Carolina magistrates are the “first face” of the judicial system. They serve the public with professionalism, continually staying updated on the ever-evolving civil and criminal […]
Does the law that makes personally identifiable arrest information a public record apply to the arrest of a person who is 16-or 17-years-old and charged with a Class A – E felony? This is the most common question I have received since the law of juvenile jurisdiction changed on December 1, 2024. Beginning with offenses committed on that date, Class A – E felonies committed at ages 16 and 17 fall under original criminal jurisdiction. G.S. 7B-1501(7)b.2. That means that these cases are now criminal cases from their inception. At the same time, the youth involved fall under the definition of juvenile in the Juvenile Code. G.S. 7B-1501(17). This leaves many people wondering which law applies—the public records law about law enforcement arrest records or the Juvenile Code provisions about the confidential nature of law enforcement records and files concerning juveniles?
On December 13, 2024, the NC Supreme Court published In re L.L., an appeal of a permanency planning order (PPO) that awarded custody to a non-parent. In the PPO, the court awarded permanent custody to the child’s foster parents rather than the child’s maternal grandfather. In achieving this permanent plan, the court eliminated reunification with the child’s mother as a permanent plan. The issues for appeal focused on whether the trial court made the necessary statutory findings for placement with a non-relative and for eliminating reunification as a permanent plan. The Court of Appeals held the required findings were not made. See 291 N.C. App. 402 (2023) (unpublished). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and addressed what findings are required for both non-relative placement and the elimination of reunification as a permanent plan. The answer may surprise you and will have an impact on court orders moving forward.