Articles related to abuse neglect and dependency - Page 5 of 9

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, many session laws that revised the abuse, neglect, dependency and termination of parental rights (TPR) statutes in the Juvenile Code (G.S. Chapter 7B) became […]

This post is also cross posted on our Coates Canon blog.

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, one new session law that addresses child welfare, S.L. 2021-132, has raised a number of questions for county department of social services (“DSS”) directors and attorneys. This new session law has many elements related to child welfare court proceedings, which my colleague Sara DePasquale will address in a separate blog post. This blog focuses solely on Section 1.(c) of S.L. 2021-132, which amends G.S. 7B-302 – a law that addresses confidentiality of child protective services (“CPS”) records. The amendment allows members of the North Carolina General Assembly to access confidential social services information and records in certain limited instances.

I apologize for getting that song stuck in your head. Unless you like that song, in which case enjoy.

Scenario: You represent a respondent parent in an abuse, neglect, or dependency (A/N/D) proceeding. The permanent plan is adoption, and DSS (or your jurisdiction’s equivalent agency) filed a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR). The trial court granted the TPR. Your client intends to appeal once the written order is entered. (Note that effective July 1, 2021, appeals of TPR orders are heard by the Court of Appeals pursuant to the newly amended G.S. 7B-1001(a)(7); see S.L. 2021-18).

A trial court can enforce a TPR order while an appeal is pending unless a stay has been entered. G.S. 7B-1003(a); G.S. 1A-1, Rule 62(d). As the trial attorney, you and your client should consider seeking a stay of the TPR order pending the appeal.

READ POST "Staycation All I Ever Wanted: Why Parent Attorneys Should Consider Requesting Stays of TPR Orders (September 15, 2021)"

As the 2021 Legislative Session continues, laws that revise the Juvenile Code are being enacted. The most recent session law is S.L. 2021-100, which amends various provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes – the laws that relate to abuse, neglect, dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings. This blog summarizes the amendments made by “An Act to Make Revisions to the Juvenile Code Pursuant to Recommendations by the Court Improvement Program.”

Earlier today, the Court of Appeals published In re K.M., an opinion that examines a trial court’s permanency planning order awarding supervised visitation between a mother and her child but temporarily suspending that visitation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more than a year, pandemic restrictions have been imposed by state and local orders as well as by decisions made by individual businesses and agencies. These restrictions have impacted some court orders of visitation between parents and children that were either in effect or entered during this period. Most often, the impact has resulted in the reduction of a parent’s time with their child – either by suspending in-person visits, converting in-person visits to electronic communication, or reducing the length or frequency of visits. Questions about the appropriateness of and/or authority to make those changes to visitation orders with or without court approval have been raised. Today’s appellate decision is the first opinion that discusses this issue. However, the basis for a temporary suspension of visits is not necessarily unique to the COVID-19 pandemic. This opinion may provide guidance for the suspension of visits generally.  

Consider the common scenario in which a proceeding under Article 11 of G.S. Chapter 7B is filed to terminate a parent’s rights to their child. How and when an attorney is appointed for the respondent parent in a termination of parental rights proceeding (TPR), whether the attorney is provisional or confirmed, and how the attorney may withdraw, depends on a few factors. Ongoing confusion on these points has led to several appeals in recent years, including a new ruling by our Supreme Court. See In re K.M.W., 376 N.C. 195 (2020). This post reviews the governing principles under North Carolina case law and statutes.

In August, the North Carolina Supreme Court published its first opinion addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA): In re E.J.B., 375 N.C. 95 (2020). Specifically, the supreme court examined the history and purpose behind Congress’s enactment of ICWA and the notice requirements that apply when a trial court knows or has reason to know the child involved in the “child custody proceeding” is an “Indian child.”

What is ICWA? Why the quotation marks? What does the opinion say? How does the opinion impact practice?

The gravity of the events of recent weeks stemming from the highly publicized killings of several black citizens, including George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks, has led for a call to acknowledge and respond to systemic racism in the United States. Initially, the focus was on the actions of the police, but the call to action has grown, asking Americans to address inequities based on race as a whole within our country. That begs the question, is race a factor in the child welfare system? The answer is yes.

These are not usual times for North Carolina, the U.S., or the world given the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In response to this pandemic, Chief Justice Beasley issued two Emergency Directives on Friday declaring that catastrophic conditions exist requiring changes to how the N.C. courts will operate. Yesterday, a clarifying memorandum was issued providing a “Coronavirus Update for Our Courts” (AOC Memo). These directives and other information may be accessed on the N.C. Judicial Branch website, which now has a page providing COVID-19 updates, here. This page also includes administrative orders issued by chief district court judges of judicial districts and how those individual districts are operating.

How does all this affect abuse, neglect, and/or dependency (A/N/D) court cases? A/N/D cases impact a parent’s paramount constitutional rights to care, custody, and control of their child. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (1997); In re R.R.N., 368 N.C. 167 (2015). Additionally, the Juvenile Code explicitly recognizes parents have constitutional rights that must be protected in these proceedings. G.S. 7B-100(1), -802. Emergency Directive 1 (paragraph 2) states that proceedings that are necessary to preserve the right to due process of law should continue to be held. Although the examples listed involve criminal proceedings, those examples do not exclude A/N/D actions where parents’ and children’s due process rights are affected.

I am very excited to announce the availability of two new resources. Abuse, Neglect, Dependency, and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings in North Carolina (2019), otherwise known as “the A/N/D […]