In Re Pdr, 723 S.E.2d 335

DSS filed a juvenile petition October 2008 alleging neglect and dependency; trial court placed the children in DSS custody.
Trial court ordered a mental health evaluation for respondent in February 2009; respondent failed to appear; GAL appointed July 30, 2009 under Rule 17.
August 2009 adjudication found the children neglected and dependent; reunification planned with respondent, adoption as concurrent goal; mental health evaluation still pending.
November 2009 termination petition filed; at TPR hearing a GAL remained for respondent; respondent sought to proceed pro se after counsel withdrawal; court initially permitted withdrawal without a full competency inquiry.
During TPR testimony, GAL urged the court to assess competency; after lunch the court conducted a more thorough inquiry, found respondent competent to waive counsel, and the parental rights were terminated in September 2010; Court of Appeals later vacated and remanded, and the North Carolina Supreme Court held §15A-1242 does not apply to TPR proceedings, reversing and remanding to address GAL’s role.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
GAL role in TPR: assistance or substitution	Petitioner argues GAL role is substitution; approval of GAL needed before waiving counsel.	Respondent argues similarly that GAL involvement governs waiver decision; disagreement on GAL consent.	GAL role is to be decided as either assistance or substitution; remanded for full briefing.
Applicability of § 15A-1242 to TPR proceedings	Petitioner contends § 15A-1242 is inapplicable to TPR; waiver standards unnecessary.	Respondent contends § 15A-1242 should apply when competency is questioned for waiving counsel.	Section 15A-1242 has no application to termination of parental rights proceedings.

In re Ernst & Young, LLP, 363 N.C. 612 (2009) (statutory-interpretation review conducted de novo; governs analysis of express language)
Fowler v. Valencourt, 334 N.C. 345 (1993) (interpretation starts with plain language of statute)