In re J.N. & L.N., 132PA21

Forsyth County DSS filed juvenile petitions on April 10, 2018; custody was granted to DSS and on May 8, 2019 Jimmy was adjudicated abused and Lola neglected.
At the September 9, 2019 permanency-planning hearing, DSS and the guardian ad litem moved to change the primary plan from reunification to guardianship with the maternal grandparents.
Respondent-father argued only for reunification at the hearing and did not assert that awarding guardianship would violate his constitutionally protected parental rights or contend he was not fit.
The trial court granted guardianship to the maternal grandparents and ceased further permanency-review hearings without making the specific findings later argued to be required by statute.
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the permanency order for additional findings under N.C.G.S. §7B-906.1(n), and held that respondent had waived his constitutional argument by failing to raise it below.
The Supreme Court granted discretionary review and affirmed the Court of Appeals: constitutional objections must be raised in the trial court to be preserved; the omission of required findings warranted vacatur/remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent preserved a constitutional challenge that the court must find a parent unfit or that the parent forfeited parental status before awarding guardianship	Petersen and Rule 10(a)(1) automatically preserve the constitutional claim for appeal	Constitutional claims must be raised in the trial court; failure to do so waives the issue on appeal	Waived — respondent did not raise the constitutional objection at the permanency hearing, so appellate review of that claim is barred
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make required findings under N.C.G.S. §7B-906.1(n) before ending permanency review	The trial court failed to make the statutory findings required before ceasing further permanency planning review hearings	Trial court’s order was adequate / or DSS disputed necessity of additional findings	Error — Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for additional findings; Supreme Court affirmed that remand

Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 (1994) (recognizes parents’ constitutionally protected paramount interest in custody and presumption of parental fitness)
Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142 (2003) (before awarding custody to nonparent, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that parent forfeited protected status)
Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (1997) (parent has constitutionally protected paramount interest in companionship, custody, care, and control of child)
State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76 (2001) (constitutional issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
In re I.K., 377 N.C. 417 (2021) (explaining the clear and convincing standard and its application)