From Child Welfare to Forward-Looking Zoning Plans: Durham County Work Session - Jan. 5, 2026
Durham County Commissioners got educated about child welfare and got briefed on the new Unified Development Ordinance. 53mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Monday, January 5th, 2026
22804.609
Board of County Commissioners on 2026-01-05 9:00 AM - Work Session
Wes Platt
Durham, NC
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
Maggie Clapp, director of Social Services, outlined Durham County DSS’s state-supervised, county-administered child welfare system, explaining how cases come through a 24/7 intake line, how staff investigate and connect families to services, and how district court judges—not DSS—hold legal authority over child protection decisions.
-
-
Commissioner Valentine asked how long children typically remained in the child welfare system, and a DSS representative responded that it was often two years or more—largely driven by the courts—while emphasizing that the system was broken nationwide, required broader community support, and involved many families simply struggling to get by.
-
-
-
A county legal representative outlined the legal definitions of abuse and neglect under state statute, describing abuse as non-accidental physical or serious emotional harm and neglect as a lack of proper care, supervision, or a safe environment, including forms such as abandonment and educational or medical neglect.
-
A county representative outlined DSS timelines and decision points from intake through a 45‑day investigation, explaining how cases are substantiated or closed, how temporary safety providers and in‑home services are used, and when emergencies trigger rapid court petitions despite a mandate to work with families before seeking court involvement.
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones explained that parents in child welfare cases had a right to court-appointed counsel, that district court judges—not DSS—made final decisions (including consent orders when parties agreed), and that DSS was legally barred from disclosing case-specific information without a court order, even to the media or the Board of County Commissioners.
-
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones explained that in North Carolina abuse, neglect, and dependency cases DSS always served as the petitioner bearing the burden of proof, while juveniles under 18 were represented through the Guardian ad Litem program and could remain involved with DSS even after aging out of custody.
-
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones explained that juveniles 12 and older could directly participate in their court proceedings, that district court judges served as sole fact-finders with appeals going straight to the Court of Appeals, and that foster parents, relatives, and other placement providers were allowed to appear and offer evidence in abuse, neglect, and dependency cases.
-
A speaker explained that in Durham County parents in abuse and neglect cases were almost always represented by court‑appointed counsel assigned through the Public Defender’s Office immediately after a petition was filed, with only a small percentage hiring their own attorneys or waiving counsel to represent themselves.
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones clarified that parents were only entitled to court‑appointed counsel once a petition was filed, and explained that reports not meeting legal definitions of abuse, neglect, or dependency were screened out while children could remain with parents or stay in temporary safety placements during investigations without entering foster care or court oversight.
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones explained that a child welfare court case began when DSS filed a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency after investigation, at which point attorneys and social workers were assigned and the department could either seek court supervision with the child remaining at home or request nonsecure custody to place the child with relatives, nonrelative kin, or in licensed foster care.
-
A speaker explained that when potential caregivers live out of state, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children required the other state to complete a home study—typically 60–90 days for children under three and about six months for older children—and that DSS could not place a child out of state, even through a temporary safety agreement without court involvement, unless this process was completed.
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones outlined the stages of a child welfare court case, explaining how judges adjudicated the truth of petition allegations, then held disposition and permanency planning or review hearings to decide necessary services and long-term plans such as reunification, guardianship, custody to relatives, or adoption.
-
County Attorney Jacinta Jones explained that when adoption became the permanent plan, the court could terminate parents’ rights and then hold regular review hearings until a new permanent arrangement was secured, while emphasizing that only a fraction of DSS reports led to court intervention and that law required prioritizing placement with relatives or non‑relative kin over foster parent adoption whenever appropriate.
-
A speaker explained that the biggest barriers to resolving child welfare cases were parents’ lack of suitable housing and limited Medicaid-accepting substance abuse and mental health providers—many of whom avoided court involvement—which led to long waits for services and extended timelines before reunification decisions were made.
-
Planning staff presented a proposed minor text amendment to the UDO that would relax current rules requiring recreational vehicles to be stored behind homes by allowing them on driveways at least 25 feet from the public right-of-way, noting that enforcement of existing violations was paused pending the decision and that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval.
-
-
-
Planning staff explained that the new Unified Development Ordinance would translate the comprehensive plan into enforceable rules by enabling mixed housing types, supporting affordable and transit‑oriented development, strengthening open space and tree canopy protections, focusing growth within the urban growth boundary, and simplifying and consolidating zoning districts to create a more predictable, user‑friendly code.
-
-
-
-
Planning staff highlighted that the new UDO expanded allowances for agricultural uses and required high‑impact developments such as schools to rezone to a civic district, creating a more equitable, easier-to-navigate approval process with greater opportunity for community input than the existing quasi‑judicial approach.
-
-
Planning staff explained that the new UDO created an RC Manufactured Home Park district to help preserve naturally occurring affordable mobile home housing and described how the RD residential neighborhood district, similar to current RU5 zones, would allow optional ‘compact’ development with smaller units and higher density that were expected to be more affordable due to their reduced size.
-
Planning staff explained an affordable housing incentive in the new UDO under which projects reserving a small share of units at 80% or 30% AMI could access a higher‑density ‘option 3’ standard, aiming to spur income‑restricted and lower‑cost housing without direct subsidy while advancing comprehensive plan goals for diverse, denser housing within the urban growth boundary.
-
-
-
-
-
Planner Robin Schultz outlined how the new UDO drew on the Comprehensive Plan and Vision Zero Action Plan to prioritize safety for vulnerable road users by updating street standards, encouraging smaller blocks, and focusing higher-density, mixed-use development along transit corridors to support 15-minute communities with less reliance on cars.
-
Planner Robin Schultz outlined how the new UDO advanced environmental goals by concentrating growth within the existing urban growth boundary, creating new park and conservation zoning districts, and strengthening standards to conserve open space, tree canopy, and existing vegetation in required landscape buffers.
-
Planner Robin Schultz illustrated how new neighborhood street types and RD districts would work in practice, showing compact RD2 ‘cottage court’ developments with smaller homes and alternating on‑street parking, as well as RD3 layouts that incorporate at least one affordable unit into the neighborhood fabric.
-
Samantha Smith summarized community and provider recommendations for a daytime shelter, emphasizing that it should test day-shelter effectiveness, offer unhoused residents access to services like mail, IDs, laundry, toilets, and showers, take advantage of underutilized space, and reflect strong support from business and frontline stakeholders in the county’s RFP.
-
Samantha Smith outlined Durham County’s RFP goals for a low‑barrier day shelter that would offer basic services, technology access, and case management to support exits from homelessness, and reported that staff intended to award a $350,000 contract to Urban Ministries of Durham to operate the shelter in its existing Liberty Street facility.
-
More from this government
Nearby governments