In re: M.B.Â, 253 N.C. App. 437

Durham DSS obtained non-secure custody of minor M.B. ("Max") on Dec. 10, 2012; Max was adjudicated dependent Jan. 16, 2013.
Trial court ordered services for respondent mother (mental health/substance evaluations, Huntington’s testing, housing/income, parenting program) and weekly supervised visitation.
Reunification efforts ceased after respondent’s mental health declined; Ms. J.M. (Ms. Metz), the paternal great-grandmother, became Max’s custodian and placement provider in June 2014.
Trial court changed Max’s permanent plan to guardianship with Ms. Metz (Dec. 15, 2014); this Court vacated/remanded that order in part for inadequate factual findings about Ms. Metz’s financial ability (M.B. I).
At a permanency hearing Aug. 8, 2016, the trial court found Ms. Metz had adequate resources and appointed her guardian (order signed Aug. 26, 2016). Ms. Metz returned to Durham shortly after the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointment of an out-of-state guardian required compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)	Respondent: the guardian was an Ohio resident at the time, so the trial court had to comply with the ICPC and failure requires reversal/remand	DSS: ICPC compliance is irrelevant because the guardian returned to North Carolina after the order; issue now moot	Court: Issue is moot due to guardian’s return to NC; no ICPC review enforced
Whether the trial court must specify which parental rights remain under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1(e)(2) when granting guardianship	Respondent: court was required to make specific written findings identifying retained parental rights/responsibilities (e.g., information access, communication, school/health updates, gifts, attendance at events)	DSS: trial court satisfied statute; nothing requires enumerating every possible parental right; visitation was specifically addressed	Court: When guardianship/custody is granted and the order does not preserve rights beyond visitation, the parent loses rights except for any the court expressly retains; the court’s suspension of respondent’s visitation sufficed; no reversible error

Roberts v. Madison Cty. Realtors Ass'n, 344 N.C. 394 (court will not decide moot or abstract questions)
Baxter v. Jones, 283 N.C. 327 (courts lack jurisdiction to render advisory opinions)
In re Accutane Litig., 233 N.C. App. 319 (application of mootness doctrine)
In re Stratton, 159 N.C. App. 461 (appeal mooted by later termination of parental rights)
In re R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. 52 (trial court cannot delegate determination of visitation; remand for clarification)
In re T.R.M., 188 N.C. App. 773 (prior statute interpretation: providing visitation and limits can satisfy requirement to address parental rights)

Outcome: Appeal affirmed; guardianship order stands.