In re: K.P. & C.P.Â, 249 N.C. App. 620

DSS filed petitions (July 2015) alleging respondent-mother abused/misused medications and that her children (Kate, 17; Carl, 13) were neglected and dependent; petitions noted an April 2015 involuntary commitment.
Adjudication/disposition hearing set for 6 August 2015; no live testimony was taken at that hearing—only two DSS reports were submitted and counsel made brief oral remarks.
On 27 August 2015 Judge Buckner entered an order adjudicating the children neglected and dependent and placed them with respondent’s brother (Mr. R.). The order incorporated DSS reports and recited findings but contained no stipulation on the record.
Respondent moved pro se (Sept. 2015) to remove appointed counsel and to vacate the adjudication; hearings occurred in Oct.–Nov. 2015. A permanency planning order making Mr. R. guardian was entered Nov. 24, 2015.
Respondent failed to file a timely appeal from the underlying adjudication; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to consider the merits and ultimately reversed the adjudication and vacated subsequent orders, remanding as to Carl.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DSS)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether the adjudication was valid absent an adjudicatory hearing or proper consent	The court may rely on written reports and the parties’ apparent agreement to placement; counsel’s remarks indicated consent	The adjudication lacked required adjudicatory hearing, there was no clear on-the-record stipulation or consent by respondent	Reversed: adjudication invalid—no proper adjudicatory hearing or valid consent order
Whether findings satisfied statutory requirement for written, independent judicial fact-finding	The order recited findings and incorporated DSS reports, which supplied facts	Findings improperly restated petition and incorporated reports; court failed to independently find ultimate facts by clear and convincing evidence	Reversed: findings insufficient; trial court improperly delegated fact-finding to reports
Whether appealability/certiorari supports review of underlying order	DSS did not contest certiorari	Respondent sought review despite missing original appeal deadline; requested relief on merits	Certiorari allowed: court exercised discretion because respondent lost appeal rights through no fault and error was shown

Johnson v. Taylor, 257 N.C. 740 (right to appeal lost through no fault supports certiorari)
State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177 (error below must be probable to justify certiorari)
State v. McCoy, 171 N.C. App. 636 (writ of certiorari is discretionary)
In re Shaw, 152 N.C. App. 126 (adjudication w/o hearing permitted only in limited circumstances)
In re J.S., 165 N.C. App. 509 (court should not broadly incorporate outside reports as findings)
In re Ivey, 156 N.C. App. 398 (trial court may consider reports but not delegate factfinding)
In re Harton, 156 N.C. App. 655 (same principle limiting incorporation of reports)
In re S.C.R., 217 N.C. App. 166 (findings must go beyond petition allegations and state ultimate facts)
In re O.W., 164 N.C. App. 699 (trial court must find ultimate facts through logical reasoning based on evidence)
In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. App. 337 (appellate review asks whether findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and support legal conclusions)
In re Gleisner, 141 N.C. App. 475 (same standard of review)
Thrift v. Buncombe County DSS, 137 N.C. App. 559 (parent-child liberty interest requires strict procedural protections)
In re J.N.S., 207 N.C. App. 670 (distinguishes valid consent orders where a consent order was drafted and the record showed parties’ agreement)