Petitioners George and Linda Hogan instituted this action seeking the termination of respondent’s parental rights. Respondеnt *626 Twana Lynn King did not file an answer and an order was entered 22 June 1990 terminating her parental rights. As to respondent Robin Dale Curtis [hereinafter respondent], the petition alleged that he had abused and neglected the minor child and that respondent had abandoned the minor child for at least six months preceding the filing of the petition. By motion dated 28 January 1991, petitioners moved for partial summary judgment alleging that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to their claim that rеspondent abused the minor child “in that he has been convicted by a jury of First Degree Sexual Offense against his daughter.” After а hearing in which the trial court reviewed the record and heard arguments of counsel, the court entered an order on 25 February 1991 granting petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of abuse. Respondent appeals.
Rеspondent’s sole contention on appeal is the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment on the issue of аbuse in a termination of parental rights proceeding. Respondent asserts that the statutory scheme set forth in Article 24B of the North Carolina General Statutes does not envision or authorize a summary procedure based on Rule 56 оf the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56 (1990). We agree.
The legislative intent and construction to be given Article 24B is defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-289.22G) (1989) as follows:
The general purpose of this Article is to provide judicial procedures for terminating the legal relationship between a child and his or her biological or legal parents when such parents have demonstrated that they will not provide the degree of care which promotes the healthy and orderly physiсal and emotional well-being of the child.
The exclusive judicial procedure to be used in termination of parental rights cases is prescribed by the Legislature in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-289.22,
et seq. In re Peirce,
In Peirce, the parents-respondents attempted to file counterсlaims along with their answer to the petition filed to terminate parental rights. The trial court struck paragraphs threе and four of the respondents’ Further Answer and Defense and Counterclaim. The respondents argued on appeаl that the trial court erred in striking those paragraphs because the additional *627 filing of the counterclaims attached to the answer was admissible based on an analogy to Rule 7(a) and Rule 13 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court stated:
The sections of Art. 24B comprehensively delineate in detail the judicial procedure to be follоwed in termination of parental rights. This article provides for the basic procedural elements which are to bе utilized in these cases.... Due to the legislature’s prefatory statement in G.S. 7A-289.22 with regard to its intent to establish judicial procеdures for the termination of parental rights, and due to the specificity of the procedural rules set out in the artiсle, we think the legislative intent was that G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B, exclusively control the procedure to be followed in the termination of parental rights. It was not the intent that the requirements of the basic rules of civil procedure of G.S. 1A-1 be superimposed upon the requirements of G.S., Chap. 7A, Art. 24B. Therefore, in this case we need only ascertain whether the trial court сorrectly followed the procedural rules delineated in the latter.
Id.
at 380,
Likewise, Article 24B does not grant a petitioner the right to file a motion for summary judgment. The termination of parental rights statute provides for a two-stage termination proceeding.
In re Montgomery,
The pеtitioners and the guardian ad litem appointed for the child argue that reversal of summary judgment will force the child to rеpeat the traumatic experience of testifying again about the actions which led to her father’s conviction. We do not agree. Properly admitted evidence of the father’s conviction of first-degree sexual offеnse against the minor child constitutes sufficient, clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of the respondent’s аbuse of the child. The child’s testimony will not be necessary at the adjudicatory stage. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court of Buncombe County for a hearing on the termination of respondent’s parental rights.
Reversed and remanded.