Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1106(a). Noting that the guardian ad litem had not objected at trial to the sufficiency of service of the summons, nor raised such issue on appeal, this Court held that respondent-mother had failed to demonstrate any prejudice to her “from the alleged failure to properly serve [the juvenile].” Id. at 8, 616 S.E.2d at 269. Additionally, this Court did not question the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on the service of summons and specifically concluded that the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings. Thus, the trial court’s order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights in J.B. was affirmed. See also In re B.D., 174 N.C. App. 234, 620 S.E.2d 911 (2005), disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 289, 628 S.E.2d 245 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, the record on appeal includes copies of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that guardian ad litems extensive advice to plaintiffs attorney and daily involvement in case exceeded formal role of guardian ad litem (B) holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 (C) holding the trial court had jurisdiction where summons was served on the attorney advocate for the juveniles guardian ad litem (D) holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs (E) holding that where the trial court denies a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a child support case the order is unappealable
Output (English): holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5