adjudication hearing in North Carolina

2020II Opinion of the Court to put [the] respondent on notice that both dependency and neglect of C.C. would be at issue during the adjudication hearing.” Id. at 350 , 644 S.E.2d at 643 (emphasis in original).

2020II Opinion of the Court to put [the] respondent on notice that both dependency and neglect of C.C. would be at issue during the adjudication hearing.” Id. at 350 , 644 S.E.2d at 643 (emphasis in original).

2009Cf. In re Hardesty, 150 N.C.

2007See Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. at 384 , 563 S.E.2d at 82 ("While there is no requirement that the factual allegations be exhaustive or extensive, they must put a party on notice as to what acts, omissions or conditions are at issue.").

2026Opinion of the Court Id. at 520 , 886 S.E.2d at 171 (cleaned up). “[T]he purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C.

2014Moreover, “the purpose of the adjudication hearing is to adjudicate ‘the existence or nonexistence of any of the conditions alleged in a petition.’” In re A.B., 179 N.C.

2026App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 15 (2006) (quoting N.C.

2014App. 605, 609 , 635 S.E.2d 11, 15 (2006) (quoting N.C.

2006Even assuming arguendo that the trial court committed error by its failure to appoint a GAL for respondent mother for the initial adjudication hearing, this Court has recently held that such an error does not "bear[] a legal relationship with the validity of the later order on termination." O.C., 171 N.C.App. at 462 , 615 S.E.2d at 394-95 (overruling parent's assignment of error, in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, pertaining to the trial court's failure to appoint the parent a GAL at the initial adjudication hearing).

2006Even assuming arguendo that the trial court committed error by its failure to appoint a GAL for respondent mother for the initial adjudication hearing, this Court has recently held that such an error does not "bear[] a legal relationship with the validity of the later order on termination." O.C., 171 N.C.App. at 462 , 615 S.E.2d at 394-95 (overruling parent's assignment of error, in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, pertaining to the trial court's failure to appoint the parent a GAL at the initial adjudication hearing).

2021App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the IN RE S.R.J.T. 2021-NCCOA-94 Tyson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2021App. 240 , 801 S.E.2d 391 , 2017 WL 2644127 at *6 (2017) (unpublished). ¶ 48 Mother’s counsel continued, “I would ask the [c]ourt not to change the plans for [Scottie], leave it reunification (sic) without something more recent to start the IN RE S.R.J.T. 2021-NCCOA-94 Tyson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part visits.” Counsel referred to DSS having produced no new evidence in the more than eight months since the adjudication hearing, implying this case lacked the required evidence, as this Court concluded the earlier order had, and reunification should remain the primary plan.

2020“Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 , 831 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2019) (citation omitted).

2020“Findings of fact not challenged by respondent are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” In re T.N.H., 372 N.C. 403, 407 , 831 S.E.2d 54, 58 (2019) (citation omitted).

2020Though “DSS did not ‘check the box’ alleging dependency” on the petition, “[t]he allegations attached to the petition [] were sufficient to put respondent-mother on notice that dependency would be at issue during the adjudication hearing” because they “encompass[ed] the language reflected in the statutory definition of dependency[.]” Id. at 427-28 , 801 S.E.2d at 163-64 (petition alleged specifically “that respondent- mother failed to provide for [the child]’s care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” (internal marks omitted)).

2020Though “DSS did not ‘check the box’ alleging dependency” on the petition, “[t]he allegations attached to the petition [] were sufficient to put respondent-mother on notice that dependency would be at issue during the adjudication hearing” because they “encompass[ed] the language reflected in the statutory definition of dependency[.]” Id. at 427-28 , 801 S.E.2d at 163-64 (petition alleged specifically “that respondent- mother failed to provide for [the child]’s care or supervision and lacks an appropriate alternative child care arrangement.” (internal marks omitted)).

2008See Peirce, 53 N.C.App. at 380 , 281 S.E.2d at 203 (holding "the legislative intent was that G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B, [now Article 11 of Chapter 7B] exclusively control the procedure to be followed in the termination of parental rights.").

2008See Peirce, 53 N.C.App. at 380 , 281 S.E.2d at 203 (holding "the legislative intent was that G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B, [now Article 11 of Chapter 7B] exclusively control the procedure to be followed in the termination of parental rights.").

2025App. _, _, 915 S.E.2d 470 , 477 (2025) (citing In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 11 , 822 S.E.2d at 700 ).

2025App. _, _, 915 S.E.2d 470 , 477 (2025) (citing In re J.A.M., 372 N.C. at 11 , 822 S.E.2d at 700 ).

2023We held in J.B. that “failure to follow the statutory mandate when conducting an adjudication hearing constitutes reversible error unless proven to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re J.B., 261 N.C.

2019App. ___, ___, 820 S.E.2d 369, 371 (2018) (holding that “failure to follow the statutory mandate when conducting an adjudication hearing constitutes reversible error unless proven to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).

2019Accordingly, this Court must determine whether, as we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference, see Miller , 363 N.C. at 98 , 678 S.E.2d at 594 , substantial evidence was presented at the adjudication hearing that the juvenile perpetrated an "annoying, disturbing, or alarming act or condition exceeding the bounds of social toleration normal for the time and place" by means of "[e]ngag[ing] in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence." N.C.G.S. §§ 14-2

2019Accordingly, this Court must determine whether, as we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference, see Miller , 363 N.C. at 98 , 678 S.E.2d at 594 , substantial evidence was presented at the adjudication hearing that the juvenile perpetrated an "annoying, disturbing, or alarming act or condition exceeding the bounds of social toleration normal for the time and place" by means of "[e]ngag[ing] in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence." N.C.G.S. §§ 14-2

2018At the hearing, the department of social services submitted a report to the trial court indicating that a "Consent Agreement could not be reached at the conference." Id. at ----, 790 S.E.2d at 748 (quotation marks omitted).

2018At the hearing, the department of social services submitted a report to the trial court indicating that a "Consent Agreement could not be reached at the conference." Id. at ----, 790 S.E.2d at 748 (quotation marks omitted).

2018See id. at 208, 710 S.E.2d at 413 .