In re L.H.

GEER, Judge.

Respondent father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to his son, L.H. (“Luke”).1 On appeal, respondent father does not dispute that he is incapable of caring for his son. He argues, however, that the trial court erred in determining that he lacked an appropriate alternative child care arrangement and in subsequently concluding that grounds, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-llll(a)(6) (2009) (dependency), existed to terminate his parental rights.2

After this matter was on appeal, respondent father filed a Rule 60(b)(2) motion following the procedure set out in Bell v.…