Articles related to Juvenile Justice

In late March The Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) instituted a new process for the appointment and payment of counsel for cases in which a juvenile between the ages of 13 and 17 is charged with first-degree murder or murder where the degree is undesignated. The process, called the Juvenile First-Degree Murder Roster (JFDM Roster) is operated by the Office of the Juvenile Defender (OJD). For the 27 counties currently participating in the program, there is a new process for appointment of counsel in these cases.

The 2024 Annual Report issued by the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) includes descriptive information related to the processing of cases in the juvenile justice system and the use of facilities that serve juveniles.  Highlights include a notable increase in motor vehicle-related property offenses and increased demand for capacity in juvenile detention facilities. This post explores these highlights. All the data included below comes from the 2024 Annual Report unless otherwise noted.

The most recent Court of Appeals delinquency-related decision, In the Matter of D.H., ___ N.C.App. ___ (August 20, 2025), is one of a very few opinions that addresses a trial court’s order placing a juvenile in the custody of a department of social services (DSS custody) through a delinquency disposition. This area of law can be very confusing for practitioners. At its core, the juvenile is in DSS custody without a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency; instead, there is a petition alleging the juvenile is delinquent. The possibility of DSS custody is also available in undisciplined juvenile proceedings. This blog provides a brief overview of when the court can issue such an order in a delinquency or undisciplined case and explains why simultaneous nonsecure and secure custody orders and dispositional orders that include both DSS custody and commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC) are a legal impossibility.

I recently had the opportunity to watch a webinar on the latest research about how protective factors and strength-based services impact reoffending among justice-involved youth. The webinar focused on the second brief (Impacts on Long-Term Youth Reoffending) from the Youth Protective Factors Study (hereinafter the Study). The Study offers interesting findings related to the way risk and protective factors work (or, spoiler alert, don’t work) to reduce reoffending. This research can help practitioners focus limited resources on system responses and interventions most likely to promote public safety.

Does the law regarding motor vehicle seizure when a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest or an offense involving impaired driving apply to juveniles? If the case is subject to original juvenile jurisdiction, the answer is no. Read on to understand why that is and what to do if a seizure order is improperly issued.

Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024).  The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

When the court issues an order of disposition committing a juvenile to a youth development center (YDC), that commitment is almost always required to be for an indefinite period of time that lasts at least six months. G.S.7B-2513(a). The court cannot order an end date for these commitments. However, the court is required to determine the maximum period the juvenile may remain committed before an extension would have to be filed or the juvenile must be released, and to notify the juvenile of that determination at the time disposition is ordered. G.S.7B-2513(a4). How should this maximum period of commitment be calculated? And is every commitment eligible for an extension? This post addresses these questions.

The Juvenile Code authorizes 14 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 1 dispositions and 23 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 2 dispositions. G.S. 7B-2508(c), (d); G.S. 7B-2506(1)-(23). For both Level I and Level 2 dispositions, cooperating with substance abuse treatment is a dispositional option.  It can be challenging to sort through the many available dispositional alternatives to order an effective and individually tailored disposition that addresses the risks and needs of the juvenile. This blog addresses why it might be important to focus on substance use disorders as part of disposition, how to know when a juvenile needs substance use disorder treatment, and how substance use disorder treatment may be included as a dispositional alternative.

This post covers recent statutory changes related to the custodial interrogation of youth who are 16 and 17 years of age and to the issuance and execution of secure custody orders in delinquency cases. All of these changes are contained in Session law 2023-114 and will apply to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023.

One of the more common questions I receive about the transfer of a case from juvenile jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the superior court for trial as an adult is whether transfer can be ordered based on consent of the juvenile. The issue seems to cross my desk when a juvenile has some charges pending in criminal court and there are unrelated felony charges pending under juvenile jurisdiction. The short answer is no. The statutory structure that governs transfer does not allow for ordering transfer based on consent. Why?