It is my great honor and privilege to recognize Professor Charles C.
Lewis on his retirement from the Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law
at Campbell University after a long and rewarding career. Professor
Lewis has dedicated himself to our law school and its students. For this,
we thank him.
With the passage of House Bill 380 (H.B. 380) in 2011,1 the North
Carolina General Assembly not only adopted a basic set of rules to govern
the discovery of electronically-stored information (ESI) in the State
courts, but also created a procedural framework that set the State on a
path towards a more reasonable and efficient discovery process. North
Carolina has long adhered to the policy of allowing parties to conduct
the liberal discovery pioneered by the federal courts under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
This Article addresses the issues that are peculiar to claims of minors
in North Carolina. Persons who are the age of majority prosecute
and settle claims that raise numerous substantive and procedural issues.
These issues can be compounded, however, when the claimant is a minor.
In May of 2010, Durham Regional Hospital began a program designed
to educate new parents about Shaken Baby Syndrome. As part of
this program, staff members instruct new parents on the dangers of
shaking a baby and suggest alternative ways parents can attempt to calm
a seemingly inconsolable child and relieve their own incidental stress.
The instruction focuses on what research suggests is the primary reason
that parents shake their children: parents immense frustration with a
period of inconsolable crying that most children experience between two
weeks and six months after the childs birth.
In Baumann-Chacon v. Baumann, decided in May 2011, the North
Carolina Court of Appeals held for the first time that trial courts have
the authority to enter orders related to child custody and child support
before a husband and wife have separated. The Baumann court carefully
distinguished its decision from the holding in Harper v. Harper, a 1981
case in which the court held that the wifes pre-separation custody and
child support claims should have been dismissed. The Baumann decision
raises some interesting questions about the limits of the trial courts
ability to enter orders protecting the interests of children when those interests
conflict with the rights of parents.
Imagine the police bursting into your home in the middle of the
night, waking you and your family from peaceful sleep. As the police
enter your home unannounced, they rummage through all of your office
files and sift through the information stored on your computer. You
demand to see a search warrant as the police officers access all of your
most personal and confidential information. One officer harshly replies
that they do not need a warrant. You are left perplexed: that goes
against everything you ever learned about the Fourth Amendment. You
can only wonder why the police are allowed to search your home and
seize your files without any sort of probable cause or search warrant.
You wonder why the police feel entitled to intrude into your deepest expectation
of privacy. How can they commit this end-run around the