1412 research outputs found
Sort by
The Implications of In Re L.M.T.: A Call to the North Carolina General Assembly to Reinstate Procedural Safeguards, a Parent\u27s Right to Appeal, and the Importance of a Permanency Planning Order
Get PDFJane Smith had finally gotten her life back on track. Jane, a mother of two, had a checkered past of drug addiction and failure to properly care for her children. After a teacher reported suspicion of child neglect to the local Department of Social Services (DSS), DSS began an investigation of Jane and her two children. At the first hearing, the judge adjudicated the children neglected and ordered the children be placed in nonsecure custody. While the children were in nonsecure custody, the court and DSS planned to reunite Jane with her two children and maintain the family unit.
Eight months later, Jane and her lawyer believed she had made the required reasonable efforts to regain full custody of her children and avoid a cease reunification efforts order. Jane attended drug counseling classes, parenting classes, and sought full-time employment, but the court decided that reunification between Jane and her children was not the best course of action and entered an order ceasing reunification efforts between Jane and her children. The court cited what it found to be a lack of reasonable efforts made by Jane. Jane, trying to regain full custody of her children, filed a motion to appeal the cease reunification order on the grounds that the court lacked sufficient findings of fact to show that reunification between Jane and her children would be futile. Jane believed the deficient cease reunification order meant she could continue on the permanency planning track and eventually regain custody of her children.
Following the order to cease reunification efforts and Jane\u27s appeal, DSS motioned for a termination of parental rights. Accordingly, the court entered a termination of parental rights order. The termination of parental rights order completely severed the relationship between Jane and her children.
On appeal, the appellate court agreed that the cease reunification order was deficient and did not include the required findings of fact showing reunification efforts would be futile. The court stated that, on its own standing, the cease reunification order incorrectly characterized Jane\u27s reasonable efforts. The appellate court held that Jane\u27s participation in drug counseling classes and parenting classes was proof of her reasonable efforts to regain custody. Despite finding the order deficient, the appellate court upheld the trial court\u27s permanency planning order because the missing findings of fact were provided by the subsequent termination of parental rights order. Relying on In re L.M.T., A.M.T., the court read the subsequent termination of parental rights order in conjunction with the permanency planning order. The holding from L.M.T. allowed a subsequent termination of parental rights order to cure a prior, deficient order. Therefore, although Jane had a basis for appealing from the cease reunification order, her appeal was moot when the court later made the required findings in the subsequent, separate order. Thus, Jane lost her appeal and her relationship with her children was forever severed
Tracking Reasonableness: An Evaluation of North Carolina\u27s Lifetime Satelite-Based Monotoring Statutes in the Wake of Grady v. North Carolina
Get PDFOn the evening of October 4, 1957, one event would change the world forever. With the launch of the first satellite, Sputnik, the whole of civilization was ushered into a new period of technology and discovery. No one who witnessed the birth of the satellite age almost 60 years ago could have envisioned the indispensable impact satellite technology would have in the modern era. One of the most significant benefits of satellite technology has been the use of multiple satellites to determine precise location information from anywhere on the planet. This use, commonly known as GPS (global positioning system), has become so commonplace in our world that a considerable portion of the world population uses it daily. In addition, states capitalized on the use of GPS technology in the mandatory monitoring of sex offenders through the creation of satellite-based monitoring (SBM) programs aimed at the protection of the public by curbing recidivism of known sex offenders. Many legal challenges followed. Then, in the 2012 United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Jones, satellites would again change the world.
The Supreme Court, through its Jones decision, would usher in a new paradigm of search law when it held that the warrantless installation and GPS monitoring of a suspect\u27s vehicle constituted a search. The question remained open, however, regarding the effect the Jones decision would have on the GPS monitoring of sex offenders. In the 2015 Supreme Court term, the Court answered this question. In Grady v. North Carolina, the Court ruled that SBM programs constituted a Fourth Amendment search. Despite its ruling, the Court left open the ultimate question of whether SBM programs are reasonable warrantless searches. This Article will utilize the framework left by the Grady decision and attempt to answer the ultimate question for North Carolina: is the lifetime SBM program reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? The Article will conclude that a court will likely hold that North Carolina\u27s SBM program is a reasonable search. When considering this result, four crucial observations appear:
(1) In assessing reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has struggled to consistently maintain a clear direction. Over time, the Court has grappled with whether to require a warrant or to inquire into reasonableness alone. As a result of this dilemma, a number of cases have sprung up to create classifications of warrantless searches that defy a common and consistent theme.
(2) The Grady decision\u27s cited cases Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton and Samson v. California provide at least two distinct reasonableness scaffolds to build upon: (1) a special needs exception, requiring some need beyond traditional law enforcement; and (2) a general reasonableness exception based upon a particular context, such as a diminished expectation of privacy.
(3) While it is likely that the North Carolina courts will conclude that the SBM program is reasonable, such a decision will constitute a Pyrrhic victory, won at the considerable cost to individual privacy. Veritably, if the court upholds lifetime GPS monitoring of individuals as reasonable, such a ruling pushes the outside of the envelope for suspicionless and warrantless searches.
(4) Should the High Court eventually consider the ultimate question left open in its Grady decision, the resolution is in doubt. In fact, the whole aggregate of its pronouncements on reasonableness, both past and future, has been shrouded in ambiguity. Currently, the Court is ensnared in darkness over the future of its ideological understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia\u27s recent death casts a long shadow over the evenly divided Court. Only time will tell if the Court will attempt to view reasonableness through a preference for warrants or if it chooses to continue to track reasonableness alone in the universe of uncertainty and unpredictability that is the Fourth Amendment. For now, all we can do is look to the heavens and wonder
Salvaging the North Carolina Teacher-Cyberbullying Statute
Get PDFIn 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly criminalized student Internet activity intended to “torment” school employees. This Comment contends that the legislation violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It violates the First Amendment because it creates both subject matter and viewpoint limitations on speech. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment because the requirement that the student must intend to “torment” a school employee creates an impermissibly vague standard. This Comment suggests that the North Carolina General Assembly could correct the constitutional deficiencies in the legislation through revisions that limit punishment to “true threats.” Such revisions would reign in the broad coverage of the statute, while still protecting school employees and school systems from the most serious and disruptive online student misconduct
Positive Liberty in Public Finance: State Oversight of Local-Government Debt and the North Carolina Model
Get PDF
Resolving LLC Member Disputes in North Carolina
Get PDFNorth Carolina has a new LLC act. If LLC members assert that the managers or controlling members have in some manner breached fiduciary or contractual duties owed to the complaining members or to the LLC, how will lawyers handle such claims? This Article first considers the circumstances in which North Carolina LLC managers and members may owe fiduciary duties to other members. Assuming that there is a duty that may have been breached, what are the limits on a member bringing a direct suit either on her own behalf or on behalf of the LLC? Since direct suits will now be prohibited in many cases, the plaintiff must likely resort to bringing a derivative claim. The problems with these suits under the new law are considered in some detail. Lastly, the Article provides drafting suggestions to protect LLC members, as well as alternative methods to resolve disputes among LLC members and managers
Restructure and Reform: Products-Liability Law in North Carolina
Get PDFThis Article suggests that, although previous revisions to the North Carolina Products Liability Act brought progress, more revisions are needed, and these revisions will be best accomplished by incorporating additional measures into the act, especially those that have gained wide acceptance elsewhere. Part I of this Article provides a brief introduction to the early development of products liability law. Part I.A discusses tort-law influences in products liability, and Part I.B focuses on contributions from contract law. Parts II.A and II.B briefly describe MUPLA and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, respectively. Part III discusses the current state of products-liability law in North Carolina and suggests a number of proposed improvements to North Carolina’s products-liability act
Thirty-Seventh Annual Hooding and Graduation Ceremony (2015)
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/commencement/1093/thumbnail.jp