Articles related to domestic violence protective orders

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has issued opinions recently that address two important issues relating to Chapter 50B DVPOs, the effect of repeated continuances of an ex parte order […]

This post was written by my SOG colleague Phil Dixon. You can reach Phil at dixon@sog.unc.edu Lately I have received a number of questions relating to whether it is appropriate […]

A plaintiff cannot obtain a Civil No-Contact Order pursuant to GS Chapter 50C against a defendant younger than 16 years of age. GS 50C-1(7). There is no similar general restriction […]

How does elder abuse show up in your community? How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected how that abuse happens or how local professionals respond to it? A new opportunity to […]

****UPDATE TO THIS POST: The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals discussed below. See Mucha v. Wagner, N.C. (August 13, 2021).   I wrote […]

The North Carolina General Assembly recently made two important changes to Chapter 50B regarding civil domestic violence protective orders. S.L. 2017-92, “Domestic Violence Appeals and Modifications”, was effective October 1, 2017.

This post is also published on the NC Criminal Law blog. 

Domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) are available to “persons of the opposite sex who are . . . or have been in a dating relationship,” and who are able to establish that the person that they are or were dating committed an act of domestic violence against them. Persons of the same sex who are or were in a dating relationship don’t have the same opportunity. Is that constitutional? The Supreme Court of South Carolina just addressed a related question, and its opinion suggests that the answer is no.

In my last post, Ex Parte DVPOs, I promised more on ex parte DVPOs. But the Court of Appeals issued an important decision this week on another aspect of Chapter 50B – the definition of ‘dating relationship’ – so I’ll come back to ex parte orders later.

Chapter 50B expressly authorizes entry of consent DVPOs, GS 50B-1(c), and many cases are resolved in this way. Overall, this is a good thing because consent orders:

• Spare both parties, who often are appearing pro se, the stress and uncertainty of a trial;
• Allow the parties to create orders that will best meet their specific needs; and
• Conserve valuable court time.

It is not uncommon for a defendant to be willing to agree to the entry of an order but not willing to agree that the specific acts alleged in the complaint actually occurred.  Can a DVPO be entered without the specifics?