In Re DM, 712 S.E.2d 355

DSS filed a juvenile petition alleging Dana was neglected and dependent; Dana placed with maternal grandmother under non-secure custody with DSS retaining custody and placement authority.
An adjudication on 4 June 2009 (ordered 10 July 2009) declared Dana dependent; home study of respondent-father was favorable but required more evaluation due to concerns about alcohol use; visitation at treatment team's discretion.
Dana was initially placed with respondent-father in June 2009, with DSS retaining custody; subsequent custody reviews kept Dana with father and DSS retained control.
Dana was moved back and forth; on 17 February 2010 DSS removed her from respondent-father and placed Dana with her maternal grandmother; a 18 March 2010 permanency hearing followed by a 7 April 2010 order placing Dana with maternal grandmother while DSS retained custody and placement authority.
A 17 June 2010 hearing led to a 20 July 2010 order awarding permanent custody to the maternal grandmother with visitation for respondent-father; respondent-father appealed.
The court reverses the 20 July 2010 order, finding no findings that respondent-father acted inconsistently with his parental rights and remands for proper findings, and discusses reasonable efforts and visitation parameters for remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by awarding permanent custody without findings of inconsistency with parental rights	Respondent-father: no findings/law showing inconsistency with parental rights.	Maternal grandmother/DSS: court can award custody with appropriate findings; record supports placement.	Reversed; remanded for proper findings on parental rights consistency.
Whether the court properly addressed reasonable efforts toward reunification	DSS failed to address reasonable efforts for respondent-father beyond the initial home study.	Reasonable efforts findings were made for the mother; lack of explicit efforts for father on prior hearings.	Remand to consider reasonable efforts as to both parents where DHS removed Dana from both.
Whether visitation terms were properly framed and not left entirely to the treatment team	Visitation cannot be left wholly to the treatment team; the order must define time, place, and conditions.	Visitation discretion to treatment team was appropriate given circumstances.	Remand to set clear visitation parameters if custody remains with another caregiver.

In re P.O., 698 S.E.2d 525 (N.C. App. 2010) (natural parent may lose rights only by unfitness or inconsistent conduct)
In re B.G., 677 S.E.2d 549 (N.C. App. 2009) (applies constitutional analysis to juvenile petitions under 7B)
In re Helms, 491 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. App. 1997) (nonexclusive list of services may satisfy reasonable efforts)
In re E.C., 621 S.E.2d 647 (N.C. App. 2005) (court must safeguard parent's visitation rights by defining terms)