The drug xylazine has been in the news recently as a dangerous substance commonly mixed with heroin, fentanyl, and other drugs. Xylazine is not an opioid nor is it currently a controlled substance, which presents unique challenges for legal and public health professionals. This post, co-written by SOG faculty members Kirsten Leloudis and Phil Dixon, examines the legal and public health issues surrounding the drug.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 and applies to designated “child custody proceedings” that involve an “Indian child.” An Indian child is a person who is under 18 years old and is either (1) a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (2) eligible for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe and a biological child of a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. 25 U.S.C. 1903(4). There are four types of child custody proceedings that are governed by ICWA: (1) foster care placements, (2) preadoptive placements, (3) termination of parental rights (TPR), and (4) adoptions.

The purpose of ICWA is to set minimal federal standards for four types of child custody proceedings that involve the removal and placement of Indian children. Through ICWA, Congress sought to address “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families that are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by nontribal public and private agencies.” 25 U.S.C. 1901(4). ICWA encompasses a national policy of protecting the best interests of Indian children and promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. 25 U.S.C. 1902. ICWA has many provisions that apply to abuse, neglect, dependency; TPR; guardianship of minors; and adoptions of minors (including stepparent adoptions) when an Indian child is involved. (For more information about ICWA and its requirements, see Chapter 13, section 13.2 of the A/N/D-TPR Manual here.)

In 2019, ICWA was challenged as and held to be unconstitutional because it exceeded federal authority, infringed on state sovereignty, and discriminated on race. That federal district court opinion was appealed and ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last Thursday, in a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected every challenge made by the petitioners in Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) and held that ICWA is constitutional. This opinion has two concurrences and two dissents, all of which are discussed below. Continue Reading

An adjudicatory hearing in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action is “a judicial process designed to adjudicate the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in the petition.” G.S. 7B-802. The conditions refer to whether the juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent. Because of the statutory language of G.S. 7B-802, the general rule created by the appellate courts is that post-petition evidence is not considered at an adjudicatory hearing. However, the court of appeals has stated this rule is “not absolute.” In re V.B., 239 N.C. App. 340, 344 (2015). In the last several years, the court of appeals has carved out 3 exceptions to the rule that allow for post-petition evidence: (1) a neglect adjudication when there is a long period of separation between the child and parent before the petition is filed, (2) dependency adjudications, and (3) evidence of fixed and ongoing circumstances, such as paternity and mental illness. In November 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court in In re L.N.H., 382 N.C. 536 (2022) addressed one of those exceptions, the dependency adjudication exception, and determined the court of appeals exception was error. So, what is the rule regarding post-petition evidence? It’s a little murky now. Continue Reading

In this earlier post, I wrote about whether the 10-year statute of limitations for initiating an action on a judgment bars the entry of a QDRO if the request for the QDRO is made more than 10 years following entry of the equitable distribution judgment. https://civil.sog.unc.edu/so-someone-forgot-to-draft-that-qdro-now-what/

The court of appeals recently answered this question, holding that the entry of a QDRO, or a DRO as discussed further below, is a procedural method of effectuating and completing a judgment rather than a substantive mechanism for enforcement of a judgment. Therefore, a request for the court to enter the order is not an action on a judgment and is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Determination of the correct disposition level available in a delinquency case requires a four-step process.

1. Identify the offense for which disposition is being entered (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition offense”).
2. Identify the offense classification for the disposition offense.
3. Calculate the juvenile’s delinquency history level.
4. Use the disposition chart to identify the corresponding level or levels for the case.

Continue Reading