An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-1738

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 August 2003

IN THE MATTER OF:
    CHELSEA RESOR                    Guilford County
    MARY HANNAH RESOR                No. 02 J 352-53
    

    Appeal by respondent mother from order entered 23 September 2002 by Judge Wendy Enochs in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2003.

    Guilford County Attorney's Office, by Deputy County Attorney Michael K. Newby, for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Social Services.

    Susan J. Hall for respondent-appellant Kimberly Zakos.

    Ronald P. Butler for respondent-appellee Darryl Resor.

    McGEE, Judge.

    The Guilford County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition on 8 July 2002 alleging that two minor children of Kimberly Zakos (respondent) were neglected and dependent. At a hearing on 22 August 2002, the parties stipulated to an adjudication that the children were neglected and dependent juveniles based upon the allegations contained in the petition. After finding that the children's placement with their father for over a month had been going well and that DSS had made reasonable efforts to prevent the filing of the petition, the trial court concluded that "[i]t is in the best interest of the juveniles to be placed in the legal and physical custody of their father and it isnot in the best interest of the juveniles to be returned to their mother's home at the present time." The trial court then ordered that the matter was "closed from further Court review." Respondent Zakos appeals from the trial court's order.
     Respondent assigns as error the trial court's placing of the children in their father's custody and the trial court's failure to attempt to reunify the children with her through further reviews. In her brief, respondent argues that the conditions have not been met for waiving the required dispositional review within ninety days of custody being removed from a parent and that reunification should have been pursued in review hearings. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906(a) and (b) (2001). Respondent's argument is not persuasive.
    Review hearings generally must be conducted within ninety days of the dispositional hearing and within six months thereafter when custody is removed from a parent, and the review hearings cannot be waived unless the trial court makes findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906(b)(1-5). However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906(d) (2001) provides that "[i]f at any time custody is restored to a parent, . . . the court shall be relieved of the duty to conduct periodic judicial reviews of the placement." While the trial court did not return custody of the children to respondent Zakos, it did restore custody of the children to their father. By restoring custody of the children to a parent, the trial court was relieved of the duty to conduct periodic judicial reviews of the placement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906(d). See In re Dexter, 147 N.C. App. 110,115, 553 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2001). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by ordering the matter closed from further review. We affirm the order of the trial court.
    Affirmed.
    Judges HUDSON and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***