NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.1 (2026)

When physician may treat minor without consent of parent, guardian or person in loco parentis

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 90 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be lawful for any physician licensed to practice medicine in North Carolina to render treatment to any minor without first obtaining the consent and approval of either the father or mother of said child, or any person acting as guardian, or any person standing in loco parentis to said child where:

(1) The parent or parents, the guardian, or a person standing in loco parentis to said child cannot be located or contacted with reasonable diligence during the time within which said minor needs to receive the treatment herein authorized, or

(2) Where the identity of the child is unknown, or where the necessity for immediate treatment is so apparent that any effort to secure approval would delay the treatment so long as to endanger the life of said minor, or

(3) Where an effort to contact a parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis would result in a delay that would  seriously worsen the physical condition of said minor, or

(4) Where the parents refuse to consent to a procedure, and the necessity for immediate treatment is so apparent that the delay required to obtain a court order would endanger the life or seriously worsen the physical condition of the child. No treatment shall be administered to a child over the parent's objection as herein authorized unless the physician  shall first obtain the opinion of another physician licensed  to practice medicine in the State of North Carolina that such procedure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the child.

Provided, however, that the refusal of a physician to use, perform or render treatment to a minor without the consent of the minor's parent, guardian, or person standing in the position of loco parentis, in accordance with this Article, shall not constitute grounds for a civil action or criminal proceedings against such physician. (1965, c. 810, s. 1; 1977, c. 625, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Moore v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 139 F. Supp. 2d 712 (E.D.N.C. 2001).
Moore v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 139 F. Supp. 2d 712 (E.D.N.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “The screening of blood for infectious viruses falls within the definition of “professional services” under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.1 because it requires specialized knowledge and skills and resides outside the realm of ordinary negligence identifiable by the average lay person.”
Dobson v. Sears (N.C. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Rather, Plaintiffs alleged Sears, Mayton, and Ellis were negligent pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.1 (2)(a) (2023) by failing to activate -4- DOBSON V.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.