In re L.M.T.

I concur in the majority’s holding that the trial court’s findings of fact are sufficient under N.C.G.S. § 7B-507(b)(l) to support its conclusion that reunification efforts should cease in respondent’s case. I disagree, however, with the majority’s further statement that any hypothetical deficiencies in the permanency planning order’s findings could be “cured” by examining that order in conjunction with the order terminating respondent’s parental rights.1 Accordingly, I write separately to express my concerns.

The majority correctly observes that this case asks us to “consider the statutory…