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 on the age of defendants for claims brought pursuant to GS Chapter 50B seeking a Domestic Violence Protective Order. So, for example, a plaintiff may seek Chapter 50B protection against a current or former household member who is 13 years old or against someone 15 years old with whom plaintiff has been in a dating relationship. See blog post, March 13, 2015, Minor Parties in 50B Cases.Continue Reading
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 address these concerns is opening up September 9th.The intent of the North Carolina Elder Protection Network is to connect, inform, and support our public professionals who are working together to find ways to prevent and respond to abuse of older adults.Continue Reading
****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 about personal jurisdiction requirements in Chapter 50B civil domestic violence protection cases in these two earlier blog posts: Domestic Violence: DVPOs Require Personal Jurisdiction, September 9, 2016 and Domestic Violence: More on Mannise and Personal Jurisdiction, September 16, 2016.Continue Reading
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. Continue Reading
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?