In re A.T.

<bold>1. Child Abuse and Neglect — adjudication of neglect — clear, cogent, and</bold> <bold>convincing evidence</bold> <block_quote> Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that a child did not receive proper care and supervision and that the neglect was likely to result in physical, mental, or emotional impairment or a substantial risk of such impairment.</block_quote> <bold>2. Child Abuse and Neglect — findings — use of psychological evaluations</bold> <bold>and reports from GAL and social worker</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's extensive adjudicatory and dispositional findings in a child neglect proceeding showed that the court made its own determination of the facts and did not simply adopt reports from a social worker and the guardian ad litem and psychological evaluations. A court may consider written reports and make findings based on these reports so long as it does not broadly incorporate them as its findings.</block_quote> <bold>3. Child Abuse and Neglect — reunification efforts — futility — no one to</bold> <bold>supervise respondents</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a child neglect proceeding by ceasing reunification efforts where the findings supported the conclusion that continued reunification efforts would be futile.</block_quote> <bold>4. Child Abuse and Neglect — neglect — termination of visitation</bold> <block_quote> The termination of respondent mother's visitation was the result of a reasoned decision where it was supported by the findings and the evidence. The mother's parental rights to a sibling had been terminated and the parents had not made progress in working with DSS to parent this child.</block_quote> <bold>5. Appeal and Error — appealability — temporary dispositional order</bold> <block_quote> Respondent father is not entitled to appeal a temporary dispositional order in a child neglect proceeding. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>7B-1001</cross_reference>(a)(3) spe

R.C. 2151.414/permanent custody best interest of the child manifest weight. The trial court's determination that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children was proper. The trial court considered factors under R.C. 2151.414 for abandonment, lack of action, best interest of the children and custodial history. The trial court's judgment of permanent custody to CCDCFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error fails where the record supports that the trial court's determination was in the best interest of the children.

<bold>1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody —</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — home state</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by declining jurisdiction over this child custody matter and by concluding that Vermont was the home state of the children, because: (1) the minor children were not living in North Carolina for the required six months prior to the commencement of plaintiff mother's custody proceedings, and except for a six-week period in January and February 2002, the minor children lived continuously in Vermont from August 2001 to July 2002; (2) the totality of circumstances shows the six-week absence was merely a temporary absence, and in light of the numerous relocations and decisions, the parties' intent at the specific time they retrieved the minor children standing alone should not control the determination of whether the absence was temporary; (3) the length of absence from Vermont was a relatively short period of time, especially when compared to the fact that the minor children had spent almost the entire previous year in Vermont; and (4) Vermont's exercise of jurisdiction is proper under both North Carolina's UCCJEA provisions and Vermont's UCCJA provisions.</block_quote> <bold>2. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody — notice —</bold> <bold>substantial conformity</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a child custody case when it found that Vermont had issued its order in substantial conformity with the UCCJA and that plaintiff mother had notice and was aware of the pendency of the issue of jurisdiction before the Vermont court on 18 September 2002, because: (1) plaintiff conceded that the notice of hearing stated in all capital letters that both parties must appear and failure to appear meant it was possible for the court to issue parental rights and responsibilities based on the evidence presented by the other party; and (2) plaintiff responded to defendant's motion and specifically raised

R.C. 2151.414 permanent custody clear and convincing child's wishes best interest relevant factors guardian ad litem waive plain error. Judgment affirmed. The trial court's decision awarding permanent custody of the child to CCDCFS and terminating parental rights was proper. The trial court considered all relevant factors and its best interest determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. While the child expressed desire to remain with Mother, the juvenile court is charged with the grave responsibility of determining the children's best interest, and this is not solely limited to the children's stated wishes. The record demonstrates Mother has a chronic mental illness and chemical dependency. Mother is repeatedly incarcerated. Mother and Father have neglected the child. Mother and Father are unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities for the child. Moreover, the court did not err in not sua sponte appointing her a GAL when there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mother is mentally incompetent. A mental impairment does not necessarily mean that the adult is mentally incompetent, requiring the appointment of a GAL. Additionally, Mother never objected to a lack of assistance from a guardian at any time during the proceedings. This court has previously found the failure to object to the lack of assistance from a GAL waives the issue on appeal.