Articles related to department of social services - Page 2 of 9

In abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D) and termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings, the child who is the subject of the action is a party. G.S. 7B-401.1(f); -601; -1104. In most actions, the child is represented by a guardian ad litem (GAL). See G.S. 7B-601; -1108(b)–(c). This post provides an overview of the rights and duties of the child’s GAL, which are addressed in statute and case law.

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 […]

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 See 291 N.C. App. 402 (2023) (unpublished).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.

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.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals in In re A.K., ___ N.C. App. ____ (Aug. 6, 2024) addressed a parent’s right to be represented by a privately retained attorney of their choosing in an abuse, neglect, and dependency (A/N/D) action. See Timothy Heinle’s post discussing that issue here. The opinion also discusses issues related to the mother’s and child’s culture – their religion and language. This post explores those aspects of the opinion.

A recent decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals considers the right of a respondent parent in a juvenile abuse, neglect, or dependency (AND) proceeding to hire counsel of their own choosing and what standards, if any, a retained attorney must meet to be allowed to represent a parent. In re A.K., __ N.C. App. __ (August 6, 2024). The case also includes discussion of the procedures for appointing a Rule 17 guardian ad litem to a respondent parent – an issue I will explore in a later post. This post focuses on what the opinion in A.K. does – and does not – tell us about a parent’s right to hire counsel.

The North Carolina General Assembly made some changes to child welfare laws during this short session. Many of these changes have taken effect and some will be effective by January 1, 2025. All the amendments are important for those of you who practice in this area to be aware of.

In North Carolina, a juvenile who is the subject of an abuse, neglect, or dependency petition may be placed in the custody of a Department of Social Services (DSS). When DSS has a court order of custody, it places a child outside of the child’s home, often in a licensed foster home or in the home of a relative or other placement provider. Here at the School of Government (SOG), we are often asked whether North Carolina law authorizes foster parents (or the child’s placement providers) to consent to health services for the children in DSS custody who are placed in providers’ homes. Spoiler: the answer is “no.” If foster parents or placement providers cannot consent to medical care for the children in their home, must the person whose consent is required (e.g., a DSS caseworker) attend and give consent at every appointment for every child who is in DSS custody? This blog post, co-authored by SOG faculty Kirsten Leloudis and Sara DePasquale, addresses these questions.

Adult guardianship law in North Carolina underwent several significant changes effective January 1, 2024. My colleague, Timothy Heinle, and I previously blogged about two of these changes resulting from Session […]

Children and teens who are in the custody of DSS are (or have been alleged to be) abused, neglected, and/or dependent. While in out-of-home placements, these children experience (1) ongoing separation from their families and communities (e.g., parents, siblings, school), (2) losses (relationships, pets, their home), (3) unpredictability (parent behavior at visits), and (4) uncertainty (placement transitions, caseworker turnover). Not surprisingly, these children have a significantly higher rate (up to 80%) of mental health issues than children who are not involved with child welfare (18-22%).[1] Compounding this situation is the lack of appropriate placements for children in DSS custody.[2] Concerns about DSS safely transporting children in its custody to placements when those children have significant mental health needs has arisen. Addressing transportation concerns, the NC General Assembly in the 2023 Appropriations Act enacted G.S. 7B-905.2: “Transportation of High-Risk Juveniles,” effective retroactively to July 1, 2023. See S.L. 2023-134, sec. 9J.13.

G.S. 7B-905.2 is limited in scope and should not be relied upon 1) for any and all transportation issues for juveniles in DSS custody or 2) for transporting juveniles who are not in DSS custody but have behavioral issues. This post discusses when G.S. 7B-905.2 applies, what it allows, and what it does not.