{ "id": 4277824, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF J.P. and P.F.", "name_abbreviation": "In re J.P.", "decision_date": "2013-11-19", "docket_number": "NO. COA13-35-2", "first_page": "523", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "230 N.C. App. 523" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "621 S.E.2d 647", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634400 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/621/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 S.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636189 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/631/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638413 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "594" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 640", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638424 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "637 S.E.2d 923", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637339 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "925", "parenthetical": "\"[I]n general, technical errors and violations of the Juvenile Code will be found to be reversible error only upon a showing of prejudice by respondents.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/637/0923-01" ] }, { "cite": "626 S.E.2d 729", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635200 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/626/0729-01" ] }, { "cite": "665 S.E.2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641742 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/665/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "684 S.E.2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "896", "parenthetical": "\"Under [the doctrine of stare decisis], [t]he determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same or lower rank[.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. App. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4171791 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383", "parenthetical": "\"Under [the doctrine of stare decisis], [t]he determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same or lower rank[.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/200/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "708 S.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N.C. App. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "693 S.E.2d 383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387", "parenthetical": "remanding for proceedings to clarify the respondent's visitation rights with her child where the trial court's order provided that the \"respondent shall have weekly visitations supervised by [DSS]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. App. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4176395 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295", "parenthetical": "remanding for proceedings to clarify the respondent's visitation rights with her child where the trial court's order provided that the \"respondent shall have weekly visitations supervised by [DSS]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/204/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 S.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. App. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4176046 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508-09" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/203/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.C. App. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8377367 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/178/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "714 S.E.2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" }, { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8202464 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "723 S.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "662" }, { "page": "661" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8998657 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "514" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8203462 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "718 S.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713", "parenthetical": "quoting In re D.C., 183 N.C. App. 344, 356, 644 S.E.2d 640, 646 (2007)" }, { "page": "713", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 N.C. App. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8243935 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613-14", "parenthetical": "\"[I]n general, technical errors and violations of the Juvenile Code will be found to be reversible error only upon a showing of prejudice by respondents.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/180/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 N.C. App. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8301245 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/176/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.C. App. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4157932 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/190/0328-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 742, "char_count": 18850, "ocr_confidence": 0.724, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35583367987863385 }, "sha256": "8bff962fc2492cadaa9c032506efae69718d91efa1d0bfc6830de7c6d92fd392", "simhash": "1:82eb166e7f4e5cf4", "word_count": 3001 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:10.360096+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STROUD and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF J.P. and P.F." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nRespondent-mother, M.F., appeals from the trial court\u2019s order adjudicating her minor child J.P. (\u201cJane\u201d) to be abused and neglected. Respondent-mother and respondent-father, J.F., (collectively \u201crespondents\u201d) appeal from the trial court\u2019s order adjudicating their minor child P.F. (\u201cPenny\u201d) to be neglected. Respondents also appeal from the disposition order which ceased reunification efforts by DSS and adopted a permanent plan as to Penny and Jane.\nOn 9 August 2013, respondents filed a \u201cMotion to Withdraw Opinion and Reconsider Case Pursuant to Rule 31,\u201d which we granted. After careful review on rehearing, we affirm the adjudication order. As to the disposition order, we affirm in part and reverse in part.\nBackground\nThe Rowan County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) filed a juvenile petition on 20 February 2012 alleging that Penny was a neglected juvenile and that Jane was an abused and neglected juvenile. A non-secure custody order was entered relating to both children on the same day.\nOn 10 May 2012, respondents and Jane\u2019s father, J.P, signed a consent order acknowledging that Penny and Jane were neglected juveniles and that Jane was an abused juvenile based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. On the same day, the trial court entered an adjudication order which created a concurrent plan of reunification with respondent-mother and custody/or guardianship with a family member or court-approved caretaker as a temporary permanent plan for the children. The order also provided that a dispositional hearing was to be scheduled for August 2012.\nAt the dispositional hearing, the trial court considered the testimony of seven witnesses and the written recommendations of DSS and the children\u2019s guardian ad litem (\u201cGAL\u201d). The trial court concluded that efforts to reunite the children with respondents would be futile and inconsistent with the children\u2019s safety and their need for a permanent home within a reasonable period of time. In its order entered 11 October 2012, the trial court ruled that reunification efforts should cease and established a permanent plan of custody or guardianship for Penny and Jane with a relative or court-approved caretaker. Custody of the children remained with DSS, and the trial court ordered that a permanency planning review be calendared for December 2012. Respondents filed notices of appeal from the trial court\u2019s orders. Acknowledging that their notices did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, respondents also filed petitions for writ of certiorari. Although we granted DSS\u2019s motions to dismiss respondents\u2019 appeals, we also granted respondents\u2019 petitions for writ of certiorari.\nDiscussion\nRespondents argue that the trial court erred by adopting a temporary permanent plan at the adjudication hearing and a permanent plan for Penny and Jane at the disposition hearing without giving respondents the statutorily required notice of its intent to create a permanent plan as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(a). We disagree.\n\u201cWe review a dispositional order only for abuse of discretion.\u201d In re B.W., 190 N.C. App. 328, 336, 665 S.E.2d 462, 467 (2008). \u201cQuestions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo by an appellate court.\u201d In re A.C.F., 176 N.C. App. 520, 522, 626 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(c) (2011) provides, in pertinent part:\nWhen the court determines that reunification efforts are not required or shall cease, the court shall order a plan for permanence as soon as possible, after providing each party with a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present evidence. If the court\u2019s determination to cease reunification efforts is made in a hearing that was duly and timely noticed as a permanency planning hearing, then the court may immediately proceed to consider all of the criteria contained in G.S. 7B-907(b), make findings of fact, and set forth the best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time. If the court\u2019s decision to cease reunification efforts arises in any other hearing, the court shall schedule a subsequent hearing within 30 days to address the permanent plan in accordance with G.S. 7B-907.\n(Emphasis added.) N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(a) further provides that when the trial court conducts a permanency plan hearing \u201c[t]he clerk shall give 15 days\u2019 notice of the hearing and its purpose to the parent... indicating the court\u2019s impending review.\u201d\nThe adjudication order puiports to adopt a \u201ctemporary permanent plan\u201d of reunification of Penny and Jane with respondent-mother concurrent with custody or guardianship with a family member or other court-approved caretaker. Although respondents contend it was error for the trial court to enter the \u201ctemporary permanent plan\u201d at adjudication without providing notice of its intent to do so, we conclude that respondents cannot demonstrate any prejudice resulting from this alleged error. See In re H.T., 180 N.C. App. 611, 613-14, 637 S.E.2d 923, 925 (2006) (\u201c[I]n general, technical errors and violations of the Juvenile Code will be found to be reversible error only upon a showing of prejudice by respondents.\u201d). To the extent that the adjudication order did so without notice, the alleged error was rendered harmless by the trial court\u2019s adoption of a permanent plan at disposition. As discussed below, respondents did not object to the creation of the permanent plan in the disposition order.\nAs to the disposition hearing, respondents contend they were provided no notice of the trial court\u2019s intent to enter a permanent plan, which is required by section 7B-907(a). \u201cThis Court has previously held that \u2018N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 7B-507 and 907 do not permit the trial court to enter a permanent plan for a juvenile during disposition\u2019 without the statutorily required notice for a permanency planning hearing.\u201d See In re S.C.R., _ N.C. App. _, _, 718 S.E.2d 709, 713 (2011) (quoting In re D.C., 183 N.C. App. 344, 356, 644 S.E.2d 640, 646 (2007)). However, in In re J.S., 165 N.C. App. 509, 514, 598 S.E.2d 658, 662 (2004), this Court held that a party waives its right to notice under section 7B-907(a) by attending the hearing in which the permanent plan is created, participating in the hearing, and failing to object to the lack of notice. See also In re C.W., _ N.C. App. _, 723 S.E.2d 582 (No. COA11-1325) (2012) (unpublished) (concluding that the respondent-mother waived her right to notice that a permanent plan would be created in a hearing scheduled only for adjudication and disposition where the mother and her counsel attended and participated in the hearing without objecting to the lack of notice required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(a)).\nThe transcript from the 6 September 2012 disposition hearing establishes that the trial court announced its finding that reunification would be inconsistent with Penny\u2019s and Jane\u2019s safety and announced its intent to enter a permanent plan without objection by respondents:\nTHE COURT: The [c]ourt. . . further bases [i]ts decision to issue a disposition with a permanent plan of custody to [sic] guardianship.\nFurther for the Department?\n[Counsel for DSS]: No, your Honor. Thank you.\nTHE COURT: Further for the guardian?\n[Counsel for GAL]: Thank you.\nTHE COURT: Further for Respondents?\n[Counsel for respondents]: No, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\nIt is apparent that respondents and their counsel attended and participated in the disposition hearing in which the trial court announced its intention to enter a permanent plan, and they did not object to the trial court\u2019s failure to give the notice required by section 7B-907(a). In accordance with In re J.S., we conclude that respondents waived any objection to the lack of notice of a hearing on a permanent plan, and their argument is overruled.\nII. Findings of Fact\nRespondent-mother contends the trial court erred in ceasing reunification efforts without making findings that such efforts would be futile or would be inconsistent with the children\u2019s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time. We disagree.\nIn a dispositional order, a trial court may direct\nthat reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for placement of the juvenile shall not be required or shall cease if the court makes written findings of fact that:\n(1) Such efforts clearly would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile\u2019s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(l) (2011). \u201cThis Court reviews an order that ceases reunification efforts to determine whether the trial court made appropriate findings, whether the findings are based upon credible evidence, whether the findings of fact support the trial court\u2019s conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition.\u201d In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007).\nRespondent-mother contends the trial court\u2019s order does not make an ultimate finding relating to the two prongs of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)(l), that: (1) attempted reunification efforts would be futile or (2) reunification would be inconsistent with the juvenile\u2019s health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time. In In re I.R. C.,_N.C. App._,_, 714 S.E.2d 495,498 (2011), we reversed the trial court\u2019s order ceasing reunification efforts because the trial court recited allegations against the respondent but did not \u201clink\u201d any of those allegations to the two prongs of section 7B-507(b)(l). We contrasted the order at issue in In re I.R.C. with orders upheld by this Court as meeting the statutory requirements upon the ground that \u201cthe trial court in those cases related the findings to a conclusion of law that specifically set forth the basis for ceasing reunification efforts under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b).\u201d Id.\nHere, the trial court\u2019s order contains the following findings of fact:\n60. . . . [Respondent-mother] continues to live with [respondent-father] even though she understands that [Jane] cannot be placed with her since [respondent-father] has ano contact order with [Jane], and [respondents] have not complied with the court\u2019s order.\n61. Based upon [respondent-father\u2019s] guilty plea to Misdemeanor Child Abuse in district court, his violation or [sic] probation after having been serving probation only about ninety days, the changing intentions of reconciliation between [respondents], and the substantial risk to [Jane and Penny] if reunified with [respondents], a permanent plan of custody or guardianship represents the safest and most appropriate permanent plan for the juveniles.\n65. It would be contrary to the best interests and welfare of the juveniles to be returned to the custody of [respondents] since the issue of child abuse has not yet been addressed by [respondents].\nThese findings are not challenged by respondents as lacking competent evidentiary support, and they are therefore binding on appeal. In re L.A.B., 178 N.C. App. 295, 298, 631 S.E.2d 61, 64 (2006). These findings of fact support the trial court\u2019s ultimate conclusion: \u201cContinuing a plan of reunification for the juveniles is futile based on the findings at adjudication and those enumerated above and is inconsistent with the juveniles\u2019 safety and their need for a permanent home within a reasonable period of time.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Thus, because the trial court \u201crelated the findings to a conclusion of law that specifically set forth the basis for ceasing reunification efforts under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-507(b)[,]\u201d In re I.R.G.,_N.C. App. at__, 714 S.E.2d at 498, respondent-mother\u2019s argument is overruled.\nIII. Visitation Plan\nRespondent-father argues, and the GAL agrees, that the trial court failed to adopt a proper visitation plan in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B~905(c), as the plan provided in the disposition order does not sufficiently set forth the time, place, or conditions of respondent-father\u2019s visitation with Penny. We agree.\nPursuant to the Juvenile Code, \u201c[a]ny dispositional order .. . under which the juvenile\u2019s placement is continued outside the home shall provide for appropriate visitation as may be in the best interests of the juvenile and consistent with the juvenile\u2019s health and safety. \u201d N. C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-905(c) (2009). \u201cAn appropriate visitation plan must provide for a minimum outline of visitation, such as the time, place, and conditions under which visitationmay be exercised.\u201dInreE.C., 174N.C. App. 517, 523, 621 S.E.2d 647, 652 (2005).\nIn re S.C.R., _ N.C. App. _, 718 S.E.2d 709, 713 (2011) (emphasis added).\nIn In re T.B., 203 N.C. App. 497, 508-09, 692 S.E.2d 182, 189-90 (2010), we concluded that the provisions in the trial court\u2019s dispositional order regarding visitation were inadequate. The order provided that the mother\u2019s visitation with her children would be left to the discretion of the treatment team, that her visitation must be supervised, and that the visitations must adhere to the rules established by DSS. Id. We remanded the order to the trial court for the making of additional findings and conclusions regarding the time, place, and conditions under which visitation could be exercised. Id.; see also In re W.V., 204 N.C. App. 290, 295, 693 S.E.2d 383,387 (2010) (remanding for proceedings to clarify the respondent\u2019s visitation rights with her child where the trial court\u2019s order provided that the \u201crespondent shall have weekly visitations supervised by [DSS]\u201d); In re I.S., 209 N.C. App. 470, 708 S.E.2d 214 (No. COA10-902) (2011) (unpublished) (concluding provisions of the trial court\u2019s order regarding visitation were inadequate where the order provided that respondent was \u201centitled to at least two visits per month\u201d that were to take place at the home of the child\u2019s caregiver).\nHere, the trial court\u2019s order provides that DSS \u201cshall offer supervised visitation\u201d for respondent-father with Penny \u201cevery-other week\u201d and that visitation will be reduced to once a month if respondent-father \u201cacts inappropriately during a visitation or does not attend a visit\u201d without prior notice. Based on this Court\u2019s holdings in In re T.B., In re W.V., and In re I.S., we reverse and remand that portion of the disposition order regarding respondent-father\u2019s visitation with Penny. We remand for the making of additional findings and conclusion as to the time, place, and conditions of an appropriate visitation plan.\nConclusion\nRespondents waived their right to notice of the trial court\u2019s intent to enter a permanent plan, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 7B-507(c) and 7B-907(a). The trial court\u2019s decision to cease reunification efforts in its 11 October 2012 disposition order is supported by sufficient findings of fact. We reverse and remand that portion of the disposition order regarding respondent-father\u2019s visitation with Penny for the making of additional findings and conclusions concerning the time, place, and conditions of an appropriate visitation plan. The remainder of the disposition order is affirmed.\nThe 13 June 2012 adjudication order is AFFIRMED.\nThe 11 October 2012 disposition order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.\nJudges STROUD and ERVIN concur.\n. \u201cPenny\u201d and \u201cJane\u201d are pseudonyms used to protect the identity of the minor children. Respondent-mother, M.F., and respondent-father, J.F., are the parents of the minor child Penny. Respondent-mother and J.P. are the parents of the minor child Jane; however, the father, J.P., is not a party to this appeal.\n. On rehearing, respondents contend that the relevant portions of In re J.S. cited herein are merely dicta and thus may not be relied on in this decision. We disagree. In that case, the Court stated \u201c[i]n light of our holding on respondents\u2019 first two assignments of error, it is unnecessary to address respondents\u2019 third assignment of error. However, we do address respondents\u2019final assignment of error since it raises an issue as to the trial court's jurisdiction.\u201d In re J.S., 165 N.C. App. at513, 598 S.E.2d at 661. As part of this final assignment of error, the Court reached the merits of the notice issue. See id. (fBy this same assignment of error, respondents contend they did not receive notice of the permanency planning hearing as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-907(a)[.]\u201d) (emphasis added). The Court then decided the issue using the analysis we cite above. Therefore, because this analysis was determinative of the outcome of the case, it was not dicta, and we find it controlling. Musi v. Town of Shallotte, 200 N.C. App. 379, 383, 684 S.E.2d 892, 896 (2009) (\u201cUnder [the doctrine of stare decisis], [t]he determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same or lower rank[.]\u201d) (citation and quotation omitted).\n. We note that respondent-mother challenges the second finding contained in finding No. 65 \u2014 that the trial court found that the Family Reunification Assessment yields a high risk of harm to the juveniles if they are returned to respondents\u2019 home. However, she does not challenge the first finding that the issue of child abuse has not been addressed by respondents.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Assistant Appellate Defender Joyce L. Terres for respondent-appellant mother.", "Ryan McKaigfor respondent-appellant father.", "Rowan County Department of Social Services, by Cynthia Dry, for petitioner-appellee.", "Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Katie M. lams, for guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF J.P. and P.F.\nNO. COA13-35-2\nFiled 19 November 2013\n1. Child Abuse, Dependency, and Neglect \u2014 notice\u2014failure to object\nAlthough respondents argued that the trial court erred in a child neglect proceeding by adopting a temporary and then a permanent plan for the children without the statutorily required notice, the alleged error was rendered harmless by respondents\u2019 failure to object at a disposition hearing which they attended with counsel.\n2. Child Abuse, Dependency, and Neglect \u2014 cessation of reunification efforts \u2014 findings and conclusion\nThe trial court made sufficient findings before ceasing reunification efforts in a child neglect hearing and related the findings to a conclusion of law that specifically set forth the basis for ceasing reunification efforts.\n3. Child Abuse, Dependency, and Neglect \u2014 visitation plan\u2014 time, place, conditions \u2014 not sufficiently set forth\nThe trial court failed in a child neglect proceeding to adopt a proper visitation plan where the plan provided in the disposition order did not sufficiently set forth the time; place, or conditions of respondent-father\u2019s visitation.\nAppeal by respondents from orders entered 13 June 2012 and 11 October 2012 by Judge Charlie Brown in Rowan County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2013.\nAssistant Appellate Defender Joyce L. Terres for respondent-appellant mother.\nRyan McKaigfor respondent-appellant father.\nRowan County Department of Social Services, by Cynthia Dry, for petitioner-appellee.\nParker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Katie M. lams, for guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0523-01", "first_page_order": 533, "last_page_order": 540 }