Recent blog posts - 9 of 69

Five-year-old Katy* has experienced a lot in her young life. As a baby in her mother’s care, Katy was exposed to substance use and domestic violence, leading to a county department of social services (DSS) petition alleging Katy was neglected. DSS and Katy’s parents established a safety plan for her to live with her father. Katy was later adjudicated neglected. At initial disposition, the trial court was asked for the first time to consider removing Katy from her father, who was not the subject of allegations in the petition, based on concerns over his criminal history. The trial court agreed with DSS, granting temporary custody of Katy to paternal relatives. In re K.C., __ N.C. __ (Dec. 13, 2024).

The initial disposition order included that both of Katy’s parents acted inconsistent with their constitutional rights as parents. Sl.Op. at 5. The father appealed, arguing that the court erred by drawing this conclusion without receiving evidence and without discussion from any party on the issue. Applying a de novo review of this conclusion of law, a divided Court of Appeals panel agreed, vacated the disposition order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. Our Supreme Court granted DSS’ petition for discretionary review and raised the issue of whether the father had preserved the constitutional claims for appeal – which the Court held he had not. Sl.Op. 6-7. Read on to learn what it means for parents and their attorneys.

Many of the confidentiality laws that apply to North Carolina’s social services agencies, mental health facilities, healthcare providers, local health departments, and substance use disorder treatment providers permit disclosure of […]

The end of the year is always a good time to look back and reflect. The close of 2024 offers an opportunity to examine recent legislative developments affecting small claims […]

When children are removed from their home through a court order in an abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) action, a county department of social services (DSS) is required to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. See G.S. 7B-507(a)(2); 7B-903(a3). “Reasonable efforts” are defined in part as “[t]he diligent use of preventive or reunification services by a department of social services when a juvenile’s remaining at home or returning home is consistent with achieving a safe, permanent home for the juvenile within a reasonable period of time” G.S. 7B-101(18). “Return home or reunification” is defined as the “[p]lacement of the juvenile in the home of either parent or placement of the juvenile in the home of a guardian or custodian from whose home the child was removed by court order.”  G.S. 7B-101(18c). This means reasonable efforts for reunification (sometimes referred to as “reunification efforts”) must occur for both parents and if there is a guardian or custodian from whom the child was removed, that guardian or custodian as well. However, the Juvenile Code (G.S. Chapter 7B) authorizes the court to relieve DSS of the obligation to provide reasonable efforts for reunification. When the court may enter such an order is limited to an initial dispositional hearing or a permanency planning hearing. The findings a court must make before relieving DSS of making reasonable efforts for reunification differs at initial disposition and permanency planning. Compare G.S. 7B-901(c) with 7B-906.2(b); see In re T.W., 250 N.C. App. 68 (2016). What is required at initial disposition? Our appellate courts have provided some guidance.

When Session Law (S.L.) 2024-17 takes effect next Sunday, December 1, cases in which a Class A – E felony offense is alleged to have been committed at age 16 or 17 will originate under criminal jurisdiction. This means that the juveniles involved in these cases will be processed as defendants in criminal proceedings and not under the procedure for initiating a juvenile delinquency proceeding. At first blush, it may seem that this change will bring local procedure back to what it was before most offenses committed at ages 16 and 17 were brought under original juvenile jurisdiction (with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act in 2019). However, since 2019, both federal and state law changed in ways that shifted the landscape of arrest processing and confinement of minors. This blog explores these changes and their impact on implementation of S.L. 2024-17.

In Wenninger v. Wenninger, decided May 7, 2024, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that an equitable distribution judgment was void for lack of a necessary party because the […]

*This post was written by Adult Protection Network Director Kristy Preston. Earlier this year, the UNC School of Government’s Adult Protection Network held six training events known as the “2024 […]

Hurricane Helene caused historic flooding in Western North Carolina, destroying or damaging approximately 126,000 residential properties. Many of those properties were occupied by tenants who now find themselves in unfit […]

In a series of recent decisions from the Court of Appeals, tenants in federally subsidized and federally funded properties have challenged whether the notice they received from their landlords was […]

A new law governing capacity to proceed in delinquency cases is set to take effect beginning with offenses committed on or after January 1, 2025. Part V. of Session Law 2023-114 creates a juvenile capacity standard and establishes procedures to be used when capacity to proceed is challenged. You can find a description of much of the new law in my blog from September. This post explains the juvenile remediation process that will be available under the new law for certain cases in which a juvenile is found to lack capacity to proceed.