In re: R.P., 252 N.C. App. 301

YFS filed petition (June 17, 2014) alleging juvenile R.P. ("Ricky") was neglected and dependent after domestic incidents between respondent (father) and the juveniles’ mother; Ricky was placed with his maternal aunt (Mrs. M.).
Juveniles were adjudicated neglected/dependent by agreement on August 19, 2014; adjudication was held in abeyance as to respondent. Initial permanency plan: reunification.
Repeated concerns about domestic violence and contact between the parents led the court to adopt a concurrent guardianship plan for Ricky; respondent later obtained a DVPO against the mother (consent order granting DVPO entered November 6, 2015).
On February 9, 2016 the court changed the primary permanency plan to guardianship (with concurrent reunification), and announced it would grant guardianship to Mrs. M. at the next hearing.
At the March 17, 2016 hearing the trial court refused to receive evidence on guardianship, treating guardianship as already decided, and on May 2, 2016 entered a permanency planning review order and a guardianship order placing Ricky with Mrs. M.
Respondent appealed, arguing the court erred by granting guardianship without first determining he was unfit or had acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected parental status; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court may grant guardianship to nonparent without finding parent unfit or that parent's conduct was inconsistent with constitutionally protected status	YFS/guardian ad litem relied on prior neglect/dependency adjudication and the child’s best interests to support guardianship	Father (respondent) argued court must expressly find unfitness or inconsistency with parental status before awarding guardianship	Court held trial court erred: it must make explicit findings on unfitness or inconsistency supported by clear and convincing evidence before granting guardianship; reversed and remanded
Whether respondent waived the constitutional objection by not raising it below	YFS argued respondent failed to raise the issue at trial and therefore waived review	Respondent contended he was denied an opportunity to raise the issue because the court refused to receive evidence and limited the March hearing	Court held no waiver: respondent was not afforded an opportunity to contest guardianship at the hearing where the court limited evidence, so the constitutional claim may be raised on appeal

In re A.C., 786 S.E.2d 728 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (parental unfitness/inconsistency requires clear and convincing findings)
Cantrell v. Wishon, 540 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) (parents have constitutionally protected right to custody unless unfitness shown)
In re P.A., 772 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court must clearly address whether parent is unfit or acted inconsistently before awarding guardianship)
Adams v. Tessener, 550 S.E.2d 499 (N.C. 2001) (standard that findings removing parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
In re D.M., 712 S.E.2d 355 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (reversal where court found neither parent unfit and failed to address inconsistency with parental rights)
In re B.G., 677 S.E.2d 549 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (court must make findings supporting best-interest analysis; appellate court will not supply findings)
In re T.P., 718 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (constitutional issues not raised at trial are generally waived)
In re D.L., 603 S.E.2d 376 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court must have evidence to support permanency plan findings)