- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCCOA-268

No. COA20-797

Filed 15 June 2021

Hyde County, No. 18 JA 6

IN THE MATTER OF: K.P.

Appeal by Appellant-Mother from an order entered 21 July 2020 by Judge 

Christopher B. McLendon in Hyde County District Court. Heard in the Court of 

Appeals 13 April 2021.

J. Thomas Diepenbrock for Appellant.

Rodman, Holscher, Peck & Edwards, P.A., by Jacinta D. Jones for Hyde County 

Department of Social Services.

Keith Karlsson for the Guardian ad Litem.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant, the mother of K.P. (“Kenneth”),

1 appeals from the trial court’s 

permanency planning order granting legal and physical custody of Kenneth to nonrelative custodians. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) eliminating 

reunification as a primary or secondary permanent plan without making required 

 

1 Pseudonyms are used throughout the opinion to protect the identity of the parties involved.
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

findings of fact; (2) failing to make findings of fact supported by competent evidence 

that each of the proposed custodians understood the legal significance of their 

appointment; and (3) ceasing further reviews without making proper findings. For 

the following reasons, we vacate and remand.

I. Background

¶ 2 Kenneth, the youngest of Appellant’s four children, was born 

13 December 2017. Prior to Hyde County Department of Social Services’ (“DSS”)

involvement, Kenneth and his siblings resided with Appellant and her husband, “Mr. 

Phillips.” Mr. Phillips is the father of Kenneth’s three siblings and was initially 

believed to be Kenneth’s father.

¶ 3 On 17 March 2018, when Kenneth was three months old, Appellant and Mr. 

Phillips were involved in a domestic violence incident wherein Mr. Phillips returned 

home to find Appellant in bed with her paramour (“Mr. Keller”). Mr. Phillips “lunged” 

at Mr. Keller, who grabbed a nearby knife. Mr. Phillips took the knife from Mr. Keller 

and a physical altercation ensued, resulting in Mr. Keller being hospitalized. 

Kenneth and his siblings were present during the incident. As a result of the 

altercation, Mr. Phillips was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon 

with a minor present, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault inflicting serious 

injury. Appellant, who had pending charges for resisting a public officer and 

probation violation, was also arrested and charged with simple assault. Before her 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

arrest, Appellant arranged for Kenneth to be placed with a maternal aunt.

¶ 4 On 21 March 2018, DSS obtained a nonsecure custody order of Kenneth. DSS 

subsequently filed a petition alleging Kenneth to be a neglected and dependent 

juvenile on 22 March 2018. Prior to filing the petition, DSS contacted Mr. Phillips 

who indicated that he was unsure if he could care for the children. Following a 

hearing on 27 March 2018, the court issued an order continuing nonsecure custody of 

Kenneth with DSS. During this time, Kenneth remained in the care of his maternal 

aunt until 22 May 2018, when the trial court ordered that Kenneth and his siblings 

be placed in the home of Mr. Phillips’ father and stepmother, “Mr. Phillips, Sr.” and

“Mrs. Phillips,” respectively.

¶ 5 At a subsequent nonsecure custody hearing held on 8 August 2018, the district 

court found that there was an issue as to the paternity of Kenneth and ordered Mr. 

Phillips to take a DNA test. Notwithstanding the paternity issue, the district court

maintained Kenneth’s placement with Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips. Test 

results later determined that Mr. Phillips was not Kenneth’s biological father. 

Appellant subsequently named Mr. Keller as a potential father. Mr. Keller was 

ordered to take a DNA test, which confirmed that Mr. Keller, not Mr. Phillips, was

Kenneth’s biological father.

¶ 6 Thereafter, Kenneth was adjudicated neglected at an adjudication and 

disposition hearing on 10 December 2018. Appellant was ordered to participate in 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

substance abuse treatment, domestic violence counseling, and anger management 

classes. The court also ordered her to maintain stable housing, obtain a valid driver’s 

license and safe transportation, and attend visitation with her children.

¶ 7 Despite Mr. Phillips not being Kenneth’s father, Kenneth remained placed 

with Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips until 17 July 2019, when he was moved to 

the home of his half-siblings’ paternal step great-grandparents. During that time, 

the court held several permanency planning hearings in which it found that 

Appellant had completed parenting and anger management classes, admitted herself 

into an inpatient substance abuse treatment program, completed a substance abuse 

assessment, and maintained her sobriety.

¶ 8 In March 2019, Appellant resumed her romantic relationship with Mr. 

Phillips, and the two began residing with each other in April 2019 in a home that had 

“ample space for the parties’ children.” The couple later enrolled in family counseling.

Following a permanency planning hearing on 20 August 2019, the court ordered that 

Kenneth begin trial home placement with Appellant and Mr. Phillips on 

20 September 2019. The parties were scheduled to return to court for another 

permanency planning hearing on 10 December 2019. Moreover, at this point, the 

permanent plan for Kenneth remained the same as the court’s decree following the 

25 March 2019 permanency planning hearing: reunification with a concurrent plan 

of custody with a relative.
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

¶ 9 On 25 October 2019, Appellant told her social worker that Mr. Phillips had 

been physically and verbally abusing her for approximately one month. Appellant

also informed the social worker that she had concerns about Mr. Phillips using drugs

and the possibility of eviction due to Mr. Phillips’ failure to pay rent. Upon further 

investigation, DSS determined that both Appellant and Mr. Phillips had been the 

perpetrators of the domestic discord at different times and that the juveniles were 

present during the altercations. As a result of these findings, the court held a 

placement review hearing on 29 October 2019 and determined that it was in 

Kenneth’s and his siblings’ best interest to terminate the trial home placement. 

Kenneth was removed and placed in the home of his maternal aunt following the 

29 October 2019 hearing. After the termination of the trial home placement, 

Appellant relocated to Virginia to live with her mother, and Kenneth was returned to 

the home of Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips.

¶ 10 On 13 January 2020, the court held another permanency planning hearing. 

With regard to Appellant’s circumstances, the court found that Appellant reported

that she was working two jobs cleaning homes and delivering food, but she did not 

have a valid driver’s license. The court also found that despite Appellant reporting 

that her monthly income was approximately $1,200.00, she had not provided DSS or 

the juvenile’s placement with any financial assistance. Appellant also refused to 

submit to two hair follicle drug screens in October and December 2019.
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

¶ 11 Regarding Mr. Keller, the court found that he had left his inpatient substance 

abuse treatment program and secured his own housing. The court noted that Mr. 

Keller planned to find larger housing in order to gain custody of Kenneth and that 

Mr. Keller reported securing outside employment. The court also found that Mr. 

Keller had admitted to daily marijuana use to deal with stress and anger issues. 

Following the hearing, the court changed the primary permanent plan to custody with 

a relative with concurrent plans of custody to a court-approved caretaker and 

reunification.

¶ 12 This matter appeared for a final permanency planning hearing on 3 June 2020

in Hyde County Juvenile District Court. The trial court found that Appellant had 

refused another hair follicle drug test in January 2020, tested negative after 

submitting a hair follicle test in February 2020, and subsequently refused another 

drug screen in March 2020. The court also found that Appellant moved to Hertford, 

North Carolina to live with her sister in April 2020, continued to clean houses as a 

source of income, and obtained a valid driver’s license in May 2020. The district court 

acknowledged Appellant’s request that Kenneth “be returned to her immediately 

while she lives in Hertford.”

¶ 13 On 21 July 2020, the trial court entered an order granting legal and physical 

custody of Kenneth to Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips (the “Order”) with 

supervised visitation to Appellant. The district court ceased further reviews and 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

effectively ceased reunification efforts as there was no longer a permanent plan of 

reunification. The district court also released DSS, the Guardian ad Litem (the 

“GAL”), and the attorneys of record for Appellant from the matter. Lastly, the trial 

court determined that the primary permanent plan of custody had been achieved 

through the entry of the Order.

¶ 14 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of the Order on 18 August 2020.

II. Discussion

¶ 15 Appellant raises three arguments on appeal, asserting that the trial court 

erred by (1) eliminating reunification as a primary or secondary permanent plan 

without making required findings of fact; (2) failing to make findings of fact supported 

by competent evidence that each of the proposed custodians understood the legal 

significance of their appointment; and (3) ceasing further reviews without making 

proper findings. We address each argument in turn.

¶ 16 “ ‘Appellate review of a permanency planning order is limited to whether there 

is competent evidence in the record to support the findings and the findings support 

the conclusions of law.’ ” In re R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. 52, 57-58, 641 S.E.2d 404, 408 

(2007) (citation omitted) (quoting another source). “If the trial court’s findings of fact 

are supported by any competent evidence, they are conclusive on appeal.” In re P.O., 

207 N.C. App. 35, 41, 698 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2010) (citation omitted). We review the 

district court’s conclusions of law de novo. Id. (citation omitted). Questions of 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we also review de novo. In re 

P.A., 241 N.C. App. 53, 58, 772 S.E.2d 240, 245 (2015) (citation omitted). Lastly, we 

note that the trial court’s “failure to make statutorily-mandated findings constitutes 

reversible error.” In re D.C., __ N.C. App. __, __, 852 S.E.2d 694, 696 (2020) (citation 

omitted).

A. Reunification

¶ 17 Appellant contends that the trial court erred by eliminating reunification as a 

primary or secondary permanent plan without first making required findings of fact, 

particularly that reunification efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be 

inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 

7B-906.2(b). We agree.

¶ 18 Section 7B-906.2(b) of our General Statutes provides, in part, the following:

At any permanency planning hearing, the court shall adopt 

concurrent permanent plans and shall identify the primary 

plan and secondary plan. Reunification shall be a primary 

or secondary plan unless the court made findings under 

G.S. 7B-901(c) or G.S. 7B-906.1(d)(3), the permanent plan 

is or has been achieved in accordance with subsection (a1) 

of this section, or the court makes written findings that 

reunification efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would 

be inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019). In turn, subsections 7B-906.2(d)(1)-(4) of the 

Juvenile Code read as follows:

At any permanency planning hearing under subsections (b) 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

and (c) of this section, the court shall make written findings 

as to each of the following, which shall demonstrate the 

degree of success or failure toward reunification:

(1) Whether the parent is making adequate progress 

within a reasonable period of time under the plan.

(2) Whether the parent is actively participating in or 

cooperating with the plan, the department, and the 

guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

(3) Whether the parent remains available to the court, 

the department, and the guardian ad litem for the 

juvenile.

(4) Whether the parent is acting in a manner 

inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d)(1)-(4). This Court has made clear that when a district 

court eliminates reunification as either a primary or secondary permanent plan, it 

must make findings pursuant to both N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-906.2(b) and (d). See 

generally Matter of K.L., 254 N.C. App. 269, 280, 802 S.E.2d 588, 595 (2017). These 

requirements are coupled with the obligation codified in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B906.1(d)(3), which states, in pertinent part, that, “At each hearing, the court shall 

consider the following criteria and make written findings regarding those that are 

relevant . . . [including] [w]hether efforts to reunite the juvenile with either parent 

clearly would be unsuccessful or inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety and 

need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 7B-906.1(d)(3) (2019).
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

¶ 19 Here, following the 3 June 2020 permanency planning hearing, the court 

determined that it was in Kenneth’s best interest to be placed in the custody of Mr.

Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips and that awarding custody of Kenneth to the couple 

would achieve the primary permanent plan of custody to a relative. However, in the

3 April 2020 permanency planning order, the district court ordered a primary 

permanent plan of custody to a relative with concurrent permanent plans of custody 

to a court-approved caretaker and also required reunification. To subsequently 

remove reunification as a concurrent permanent plan requires properly admitted 

evidence to support findings of fact to allow the court to conclude “efforts to reunite 

the juvenile with either parent clearly would be unsuccessful or inconsistent with the 

juvenile’s health or safety and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable 

period of time.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(d)(3); see also Matter of K.L., 254 N.C. 

App. at 275, 802 S.E.2d at 592. In addition, because the trial court implicitly ceased 

reunification efforts and omitted reunification from the permanent plan, it was 

required to satisfy N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b). Matter of D.C., __ N.C. App. at __, 

852 S.E.2d at 697. Thus, without making proper findings of fact based on competent

evidence pursuant to the aforesaid statutory provisions, the trial court erred by

effectively ceasing reunification efforts in the Order.

¶ 20 DSS and the GAL argue, however, that reunification need not have been a 

primary or secondary plan because the permanent plan had been achieved. The
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

3 April 2020 order states that “[t]he primary permanent plan for the juvenile shall be 

custody to a relative with concurrent permanent plans of custody to a court-approved 

caretaker and reunification.” (emphasis added) Following the 3 June 2020 final 

permanency planning hearing, the district court concluded that the “primary 

permanent plan for the juvenile . . . ha[d] been achieved through the entry of th[e] 

[O]rder.” The trial court’s findings of fact do not support this conclusion; in fact, the 

district court’s findings directly refute it. The “primary permanent plan” for Kenneth 

was custody with a “relative.” As noted above, after the 3 June 2020 hearing, the 

trial court awarded legal and physical custody to non-relatives Mr. Phillips, Sr., and 

Mrs. Phillips.2 Thus it is implausible to conclude that the primary permanent plan 

had been achieved as the juvenile was placed in the custody of persons without any

biological connection to Kenneth.

¶ 21 Moreover, the 3 April 2020 order suffers the same defect as the Order—it fails 

to address the ultimate question of whether reunification would be unsuccessful or 

inconsistent with Kenneth’s safety. Because the trial court ceased reunification 

efforts without making sufficient findings pertinent to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) 

and the ultimate findings required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-906.2(b) and 7B906.1(d)(3), and because the trial court erroneously concluded that the primary 

 

2 Because Mr. Phillips is not Kenneth’s biological father, neither Mrs. Phillips nor Mr. 

Phillips, Sr., are “relatives.”
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

permanent plan had been achieved through entry of the Order, we vacate and remand 

for further proceedings. See Matter of D.A., 258 N.C. App. 247, 254, 811 S.E.2d 729, 

734 (2018) (vacating order ceasing reunification efforts due to trial court’s failure to 

include findings embracing the requisite ultimate question of whether reunification 

efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the juvenile’s 

health or safety); cf. In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007) 

(“This 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’s conclusions, 

and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to disposition.”).

B. Verification

¶ 22 Next, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to make 

findings of fact supported by competent evidence that each of the proposed custodians 

(Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips) understood the legal significance of Kenneth’s 

placement in their care. We agree and conclude that the trial court failed to fulfill its 

statutory obligation to verify that Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips (non-parents

and non-relatives) understood the legal significance of their appointment as 

Kenneth’s custodians. Section 7B-906.1(j) of our Juvenile Code states the following:

If the court determines that the juvenile shall be placed in 

the custody of an individual other than a parent or appoints 

an individual guardian of the person pursuant to G.S. 7B-
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

600, the court shall verify that the person receiving custody 

or being appointed as guardian of the juvenile understands 

the legal significance of the placement or appointment and 

will have adequate resources to care appropriately for the 

juvenile.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j). DSS and the GAL argue that this verification 

requirement was met in light of testimony from a DSS social worker and Mr. Phillips,

Sr. We disagree.

¶ 23 This Court has explained “that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) does not require 

the trial court to ‘make any specific findings in order to make the verification.’ ” 

Matter of J.D.M.-J., 260 N.C. App. 56, 65, 817 S.E.2d 755, 761 (2018) (citation 

omitted) (quoting another source). “However, we have made clear that the record 

must show the trial court received and considered reliable evidence that the guardian 

or custodian had adequate resources and understood the legal significance of custody 

or guardianship.” Id. (citations omitted). In the Matter of J.D.M.-J., this Court 

vacated the award of custody because neither of the custodians testified at the 

permanency planning hearing and because no evidence was offered by DSS

confirming that the custodians understood the legal significance of assuming custody 

of the juveniles. Id. at 260 N.C. App. at 68, 817 S.E.2d at 757. Here, Mrs. Phillips 

did not testify at the final permanency planning hearing, and testimony elicited from 

Mr. Phillips, Sr., did not demonstrate that he understood the legal significance of 

Kenneth’s placement nor that the couple had the adequate resources to care 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

appropriately for the juvenile. During the 3 June 2020 permanency planning 

hearing, a DSS social worker testified as follows:

Q: And have [Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips] 

expressed a desire to accept legal custody of [Kenneth]?

A: Yes, they have.

Mr. Phillips, Sr., in turn, testified to the following:

Q: And do you recall having conversations with the 

Department regarding taking custody of [Kenneth]?

A: Yes, ma’am. 

Q: And are you and your wife willing to do that at this 

time?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q: And are you and your wife willing to provide 

permanence for [Kenneth] through a custody order?

A: Yes, ma’am

As demonstrated above, Mr. Phillips, Sr., simply stated that he was willing to take 

custody of Kenneth. This testimony, even when coupled with the social worker’s 

testimony that Mr. Phillips, Sr., and Mrs. Phillips “expressed a desire to accept legal 

custody” of Kenneth is insufficient to satisfy N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j).

¶ 24 In short, neither the record at a whole nor the district court’s findings of fact 

support the conclusion that Kenneth’s custodians understood the legal significance of 

the placement or that they would have the adequate resources to care appropriately 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

for the juvenile. Indeed, the Order is devoid of any mention of the matter. For these 

reasons, we vacate and remand for further evidentiary findings pursuant to N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-906.1(j). See In re L.M., 238 N.C. App. 345, 348, 767 S.E.2d 430, 433 (2014) 

(concluding that evidence did not support a finding that the other potential guardian 

understood the legal significance of guardianship where she did not testify, sign a 

guardianship agreement, or otherwise demonstrate that she had accepted 

responsibility for the child); see also Matter of E.M., 249 N.C. App. 44, 55, 790 S.E.2d 

863, 872 (2016) (vacating award of legal custody and remanding where record was 

devoid of evidence indicating that custodian couple understood the legal significance 

of the juvenile’s placement: “Here, the husband in the custodial couple did not testify, 

and there is no evidence to indicate that he understood the legal significance of taking 

custody of [juvenile]. Further, although his wife testified at the hearing, she never 

testified regarding her understanding of the legal relationship, and the court never 

examined her to determine whether she understands the legal significance of the 

relationship.”).

C. Cessation of Further Review Hearings

¶ 25 Appellant’s final challenge is that because the Order provided that “[t]here 

shall be no further reviews of this matter[,]” the district court was statutorily obliged 

to make the required relevant findings of fact pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B906.1(n). Because the district court failed to do so, Appellant assigns error to this 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

portion of the Order, as well. DSS and the GAL concede this error on appeal.

¶ 26 “Review hearings after the initial permanency planning hearing shall be 

designated as permanency planning hearings.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(a). 

Generally, “[p]ermanency planning hearings shall be held at least every six months 

thereafter or earlier as set by the court to review the progress made in finalizing the 

permanent plan for the juvenile, or if necessary, to make a new permanent plan for 

the juvenile.” Id. In addition, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(n) reads as follows:

Notwithstanding other provisions of this Article, the court 

may waive the holding of hearings required by this section, 

may require written reports to the court by the agency or 

person holding custody in lieu of review hearings, or order 

that review hearings be held less often than every six 

months if the court finds by clear, cogent, and convincing 

evidence each of the following:

(1) The juvenile has resided in the placement for a 

period of at least one year or the juvenile has resided 

in the placement for at least six consecutive months 

and the court enters a consent order pursuant to 

G.S. 7B-801(b1). 

(2) The placement is stable and continuation of the 

placement is in the juvenile’s best interests.

(3) Neither the juvenile’s best interests nor the rights of 

any party require that review hearings be held every 

six months. 

(4) All parties are aware that the matter may be 

brought before the court for review at any time by 

the filing of a motion for review or on the court’s own 

motion. 
IN RE: K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

Opinion of the Court

(5) The court order has designated the relative or other 

suitable person as the juvenile’s permanent 

custodian or guardian of the person.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(n).

¶ 27 “Our statutes and cases require the trial court to address all five criteria, make 

findings of fact to support its conclusion, and hold its failure to do so is reversible 

error.” Matter of K.L., 254 N.C. App. at 284, 802 S.E.2d at 598 (citations omitted). 

DSS and the GAL concede that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory 

provisions of this statute. This uncontested error provides an additional, disjunctive

reason to vacate the Order.

III. Conclusion

¶ 28 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s 21 July 2020 

permanency planning order and remand for further findings consistent with this 

opinion. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Chief Judge STROUD concurs

Judge JACKSON concurs in part and dissents in part.
- 18 -

No. COA20-797 – In re K.P.

JACKSON, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 29 I join the portion of the majority’s opinion holding that the trial court’s order 

failed to comply with the mandatory making of findings of fact pursuant to N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-906.1(n) before concluding that there should be no further reviews of the 

matter, as DSS and the GAL concede. However, I respectfully dissent from the 

portions of the majority opinion concerning reunification and verification. 

¶ 30 The majority opinion does a good job of listing out the relevant facts contained 

in the record with one exception: that Kenneth was thriving in his current placement 

and received appropriate care and supervision, and that Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. 

Phillips had demonstrated a commitment to serving as a permanent placement for 

the child.

I. Analysis

¶ 31 Generally, “[t]his 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’s 

conclusions, and whether the trial court abused its discretion with respect to 

disposition.” In re C.M., 183 N.C. App. 207, 213, 644 S.E.2d 588, 594 (2007). “An 

abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is so arbitrary that it could 

not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” In re N.G., 186 N.C. App. 1, 10-11, 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

650 S.E.2d 45, 51 (2007) (internal marks and citations omitted), aff’d per curiam, 362 

N.C. 229, 657 S.E.2d 355 (2008). “The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 

novo on appeal.” In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. 269, 272-73, 802 S.E.2d 588, 591 (2017). 

“The failure to make statutorily-mandated findings constitutes reversible error.” In 

re D.C., 852 S.E.2d 694, 696 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). 

A. Cessation of Reunification 

¶ 32 Respondent contends that the trial court was required to make written 

findings that reunification efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be 

inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 7B-906.2(b). The majority agrees and additionally finds that the trial court failed 

to include findings that correspond with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B906.2(d). DSS and the GAL, on the other hand, argue that the court was not required 

to make findings pursuant to § 7B-906.2(b), because the court found that the primary 

permanent plan was achieved by entry of the 3 June 2020 order. I agree with DSS 

and the GAL that the trial court’s order fully complied with § 7B-906.2(b) and further 

agree with Respondent that the order includes sufficient findings that correspond to 

the requirements of § 7B-906.2(d). 

¶ 33 Section 7B-906.2(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that

[r]eunification shall be a primary or secondary plan unless 

the court made findings under G.S. 7B-901(c) or G.S. 7B-
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

906.1(d)(3), the permanent plan is or has been achieved in 

accordance with subsection (a1) of this section, or the court 

makes written findings that reunification efforts clearly 

would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with the 

juvenile’s health or safety.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019) (emphasis added).

¶ 34 This Court has recognized that “or” signifies an option in the statute. See In 

re D.C., 852 S.E.2d at 697. Thus, reunification shall be a primary or secondary plan 

unless one of three circumstances exist: (1) the court made findings under N.C. Gen. 

Stat. §§ 7B-901(c) or 7B-906.1(d)(3); (2) the permanent plan is or has been achieved; 

or (3) the court makes written findings that reunification efforts clearly would be 

unsuccessful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(b) (2019).

¶ 35 Circumstance two, as outlined in the statute, is relevant here and provides that 

the court may cease reunification efforts if “the permanent plan is or has been 

achieved in accordance with subsection (a1) of this section[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B906.2(b) (2019). To that end, subsection (a1) provides that “[c]oncurrent planning 

shall continue until a permanent plan is or has been achieved.” Id. § 7B-906.2(a1). 

In interpreting this portion of the statute, our Court has previously held, in an 

unpublished opinion, that “under § 7B-906.2(a1), reunification efforts may be ceased 

simply upon completion of one of the juvenile’s permanent plans—and consequently, 

that completion of a permanent plan means that no specific factual findings are 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

required under § 7B-906.2(b).” In re E.Y.B. & G., 2021-NCCOA-64, 2021 N.C. App. 

LEXIS 209, at *55 (2021).

¶ 36 Here, after the first permanency planning hearing on 25 March 2019, Kenneth 

was assigned a primary permanent plan of reunification, with a concurrent plan of 

custody with a relative. In a subsequent permanency planning hearing on 20 August 

2019, the permanent plan remained the same. Following the 13 January 2020 

permanency planning hearing, however, Kenneth was assigned a primary permanent 

plan of custody to a relative, with a concurrent permanent plan of custody to a courtapproved caretaker and reunification. Finally, during the 3 June 2020 permanency 

planning hearing, the court determined that it was in Kenneth’s best interest to be 

placed in the custody of Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillips, and that awarding custody 

of Kenneth to the couple would achieve the primary plan of custody to a courtapproved caretaker.3

 

3 The majority contends that it was implausible to grant non-relative custody of 

Kenneth when the court had previously determined in a prior permanency planning hearing 

that the primary plan for Kenneth was custody to a relative. However, the majority overlooks 

failed attempts by the court to place Kenneth with his parents and relatives. Specifically, 

the court arranged for a home placement with Respondent, which lasted for approximately 

two months. Thereafter, the court removed Kenneth due to abuse in Respondent’s household 

and placed him with his maternal aunt. Kenneth remained with his aunt for approximately 

one month before the court ordered that Kenneth be placed with Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. 

Phillips. Kenneth’s biological father also expressed his consent to Kenneth being placed in 

the legal and physical custody of the Phillips and believes their home is appropriate. Thus, 

given the history of this case, and the discretion given to courts to adopt a permanent plan 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 37 In making its decision, the trial court considered a number of factors, including 

“[w]hether efforts to reunite the juvenile with either parent would be unsuccessful or 

inconsistent with the juvenile’s health or safety and need for a safe, permanent home 

within a reasonable time.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(d)(3) (2019). Specifically, the 

trial court found: 

a. The juvenile is currently placed in the home of paternal 

step-grandfather and step-grandmother[.] . . . He has been 

in the [Phillips Sr.] home since November 1, 2019, but was 

also previously placed in their home prior to RespondentMother beginning a trial home placement in August 2019. 

The juvenile is receiving appropriate care in his current 

placement and is in the least restrictive, most family-like 

setting available to him.

b. The present risk of harm to the juvenile if returned [to] 

either of the [R]espondent parents’ homes is high. 

Respondent-[F]ather continues to struggle with substance 

abuse issues despite obtaining stable housing and 

employment. Respondent-Mother continues to have 

instability of housing and employment. She has not been 

compliant with all requests for random drug screens. It is 

not possible for the juvenile to be returned to the home of 

either parent immediately, not is it possible that the

juvenile could be returned to the home of either parent 

within the next six (6) months.

c. While these placement [sic] was determined based upon 

the needs of the juvenile and factors concerning the 

juvenile’s health and welfare, the circumstances are such 

that they should continue as previously established until a 

 

in the juvenile’s best interest, it was not implausible for the court to change the permanent 

plan from custody with a relative to custody by an approved caretaker. 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

permanent plan is achieved.

¶ 38 Thus, by awarding custody of Kenneth to court-approved caretakers, Mr. 

Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillips, and achieving Kenneth’s permanent plan in accordance 

with § 7B-906.2(a1), the trial court was not required to also find that reunification 

efforts clearly would be unsuccessful or would be inconsistent with Kenneth’s health 

or safety pursuant to § 7B-906.2(b).4 Accordingly, the trial court’s order satisfied 

§ 7B-906.2(b) and no additional findings were required.

¶ 39 By eliminating reunification as the primary or secondary permanent plan, the 

court was required to also make findings pursuant to of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d). 

In re K.L., 254 N.C. App. 269, 280-282, 802 S.E.2d 588, 595-596 (2017). N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) provides:

At any permanency planning hearing under subsections (b) 

and (c) of this section, the court shall make written findings 

as to each of the following, which shall demonstrate the 

degree of success or failure toward reunification:

(1) Whether the parent is making adequate progress 

within a reasonable period of time under the plan.

(2) Whether the parent is actively participating in or 

cooperating with the plan, the department, and the 

guardian ad litem for the juvenile.

 

4 Although the court was not required to make findings that efforts to reunite Kenneth 

with his parents would be unsuccessful or inconsistent with Kenneth’s health or safety 

pursuant to § 7B-906.2(b), the court did, in fact, address this factor—satisfying § 906.1(d)(3), 

contrary to the majority’s conclusion.
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

(3) Whether the parent remains available to the 

court, the department, and the guardian ad litem for the 

juvenile.

(4) Whether the parent is acting in a manner 

inconsistent with the health or safety of the juvenile.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d) (2019).

¶ 40 While Respondent concedes that the order includes findings that correspond to 

§ 7B-906.2(d), the majority found that said findings were omitted from the order. The 

trial court did, however, make sufficient findings pertinent to § 7B-906.2(d). Below, 

the language from the statute is compared side-by-side with the corresponding 

findings of fact from the trial court’s order (in italics):

(1) Whether the parent is making 

adequate progress within a reasonable 

period of time under the plan.

Respondent-Father continues to 

struggle with substance abuse issues 

despite obtaining stable housing and 

employment. Respondent-Mother 

continues to have instability of housing 

and employment. She had not been 

compliant with all requests for random 

drug screens . . . Neither parent has made 

sufficient progress in a reasonable period 

of time such that the juvenile can be 

returned to them immediately or within 

the next six (6) months. 

(2) Whether the parent is actively 

participating in or cooperating with the 

plan, the department, and the guardian 

ad litem for the juvenile.

The respondent parents have 

attended services but they have been 

unable to demonstrate changes such that 

they can immediately care for the 

juvenile,
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

(3) Whether the parent remains 

available to the court, the department, 

and the guardian ad litem for the 

juvenile.

The parents are generally 

available to the Court, DSS, or the GAL 

to work their case plan

(4) Whether the parent is acting 

in a manner inconsistent with the health 

or safety of the juvenile.

The respondent parents have 

acted inconsistent with the juveniles’ 

health and safety.5

¶ 41 I believe this chart demonstrates that the trial court’s order contained all the 

key factors from § 7B-906.2(d), even though the majority holds otherwise. 

Accordingly, the trial court’s order also satisfied § 7B-906.2(d). Thus, I would affirm 

the trial court’s order on the issue of reunification.

B. Verifying Legal Significance and Adequate Resources

¶ 42 Next, Respondent asserts that because the trial court placed Kenneth in the 

custody of Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillips, non-parents, the court was required to 

verify that the couple understood the legal significance of the placement. The 

majority agrees and concludes the trial court failed to do this properly, adding that 

the trial court also failed to verify that the guardians had adequate resources to care 

for Kenneth. This argument, however, is unavailing because testimony from the 

 

5 In support of this finding, the trial court detailed the progress and shortcomings of 

each parent in the order. 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

social worker and Mr. Phillips Sr. demonstrates that the couple understood the legal 

significance of the appointment, and Kenneth’s stable placement with Mr. Phillips 

Sr. and Mrs. Phillips for seven consecutive months demonstrates the couple had 

adequate resources to care for Kenneth. 

¶ 43 Section 7B-906.1(j) provides:

[i]f the court determines that the juvenile shall be placed 

in the custody of an individual other than a parent or 

appoints an individual guardian of the person pursuant to 

G.S. 7B-600, the court shall verify that the person receiving 

custody or being appointed as guardian of the juvenile 

understands the legal significance of the placement or 

appointment and will have adequate resources to care 

appropriately for the juvenile. The fact that the prospective 

custodian or guardian has provided a stable placement for 

the juvenile for at least six consecutive months is evidence 

that the person has adequate resources.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) (2019) (emphasis added).

¶ 44 Our Court has explained 

that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) does not require the trial 

court to make any specific findings in order to make the 

verification. However, we have made clear that the record 

must show the trial court received and considered reliable 

evidence that the guardian or custodian had adequate 

resources and understood the legal significance of custody 

or guardianship.

In re J.D.M.-J., 260 N.C. App. 56, 65, 817 S.E.2d 755, 761 (2018) (internal marks and 

citation omitted). 

Evidence sufficient to support a factual finding that a 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

potential guardian understands the legal significance of 

guardianship can include, inter alia, testimony from the 

potential guardian of a desire to take guardianship of the 

child, the signing of a guardianship agreement 

acknowledging an understanding of the legal relationship, 

and testimony from a social worker that the potential 

guardian was willing to assume legal guardianship. 

Id. at 68, 817 S.E.2d at 763.

¶ 45 Here, during the 3 June 2020 permanency planning hearing, the social worker 

testified as follows:

Q: And have [Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillips] expressed 

a desire to accept legal custody of [Kenneth]?

A: Yes, they have.

¶ 46 Mr. Phillips Sr. also testified as follows:

Q: And do you recall having conversations with the 

Department regarding taking custody of [Kenneth]?

A: Yes, ma’am. 

Q: And are you and your wife willing to do that at this 

time?

A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: And are you and your wife willing to provide 

permanence for [Kenneth] through a custody order?

A: Yes, ma’am

¶ 47 The testimony of Mr. Phillips Sr., coupled with the testimony from the social 

worker, demonstrate that Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillip understood the legal 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

significance of the appointment—as both the social worker and Mr. Phillips Sr. 

testified as to the couple’s understanding of the appointment. Mrs. Phillips was not 

required to testify—indeed, Mr. Phillips Sr. was not required to testify either, as a 

social worker’s testimony regarding a caretaker’s understanding, alone, is sufficient 

evidence to support a factual finding that a potential guardian understands the legal 

significance of the appointment. See In re J.D.M.-J., 260 N.C. App. at 68, 817 S.E.2d 

at 763 (emphasizing that testimony from a social worker that the potential guardian 

was willing to assume legal guardianship is sufficient evidence to support a factual 

finding that a potential guardian understands the legal significance of the 

guardianship); See also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(c) (2019) (“The court may consider 

any evidence, including hearsay evidence . . . that the court finds to be relevant, 

reliable, and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most 

appropriate disposition.”).

¶ 48 Because the court was not required to make specific findings regarding the 

couple’s understanding, and the record contained testimony from the social worker 

and Mr. Phillips Sr. acknowledging the couple’s understanding of the legal 

significance of custody, I believe the court properly verified that Mr. Phillips Sr. and 

Mrs. Phillips understood the legal significance of their appointment in compliance 

with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j). 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 49 The majority also finds that the trial court failed to determine if Mr. Phillips 

Sr. and Mrs. Phillips possessed adequate resources to care appropriately for the 

juvenile. In making this determination, the majority omits the last sentence of N.C. 

Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j), which provides that “[t]he fact that the prospective custodian 

or guardian has provided a stable placement for the juvenile for at least six 

consecutive months is evidence that the person has adequate resources.” N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) (2019).

¶ 50 Here, prior to the 3 June 2020 permanency planning hearing, Kenneth had 

resided with Mr. Phillips Sr. and Mrs. Phillips for seven consecutive months

(beginning 1 November 2019), after the court had terminated Respondent’s trial home 

placement. During Kenneth’s time with the Phillips, the court found that Kenneth 

was “receiving appropriate care in his current placement and [wa]s in the least 

restrictive, most family-like setting available to him.” Moreover, during the 

permanency planning hearing, Mr. Phillips Sr. provided the following testimony 

regarding his finances:

Q: And if I may ask, Mr. Phelps, what is an estimate of 

your annual salary?

A: It depends year to year. I think last year was fifty-six, 

I think, something like that. 

Q: And since having [Kenneth] in your home, have you and 

your wife experienced any difficulty in financially caring 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

for him? 

A: No.

Q: Do you anticipate having any financial difficulty in 

continued care of [Kenneth]? 

A: No; no, ma’am. 

Q: And have you been caring for [Kenneth] without any 

substantial financial contributions from the parents?

A: No.

Q: No contributions?

A: No.

¶ 51 Again, the trial court was not required to make specific findings regarding the 

Phillips’ ability to provide adequate resources. Indeed, the record demonstrated that 

Kenneth retained a stable placement with the Phillips for at least six consecutive 

months—establishing that the couple possessed adequate resources to care for 

Kenneth—and Mr. Phillips Sr. was gainfully employed with resources to support 

Kenneth, without any help from Respondent or Kenneth’s biological father. See N.C. 

Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(j) (2019). Thus, I would affirm the trial court’s order on this 

issue of verification. 

II. Conclusion 

¶ 52 Altogether, the trial court did not err in eliminating reunification as a primary 

or secondary permanent plan, because the order contained all the statutorily required 
In re K.P.

2021-NCCOA-268

JACKSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

findings of fact. Moreover, the court did not err in placing Kenneth with Mr. Phillips 

Sr. and Mrs. Phillips because testimony in the record revealed that the couple 

understood the legal significance of their appointment and possessed adequate 

resources to care for Kenneth. Because the majority has concluded otherwise on both 

issues, I respectfully dissent as to the Court’s holdings on reunification and 

verification.