An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA04-481

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 20 September 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:                     Burke County
        B.R.C.                    No. 03 J 37
                            

    Appeal by respondents from order entered 11 September 2003 by
Judge L. Suzanne Owsley in Burke County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 December 2004.

    Stephen M. Schoeberle for Burke County Department of Social Services.

    Mary R. McKay for Guardian ad Litem.

    Michael E. Casterline for respondent-mother.

    Robert W. Ewing for respondent-father.

    CALABRIA, Judge.

    R.D. (“respondent-father”) and K.C. (“respondent-mother”) appeal an initial permanency planning order of 11 September 2003, regarding the permanent plan for the minor child (“B.R.C.”). We dismiss as moot.
    Subsequent to the initial permanency planning order of 11 September 2003, in which the permanent plan for B.R.C. was adoption, the Department of Social Services (the “Department”) petitioned for termination of parental rights. The district courtdismissed the petition to terminate parental rights on 15 July 2004. On 7 October 2004, the district court reviewed the permanent plan and found the parties stipulated to custody/guardianship with an appropriate person. The district court then ordered that the permanent plan in this case is custody/guardianship with an appropriate person.
    Given the aforementioned changes to B.R.C.'s permanent plan, we hold that this appeal is moot and do not address respondents' assignments of error. See Roberts v. Madison County Realtors Ass'n, Inc., 344 N.C. 394, 398-99, 474 S.E.2d 783, 787 (1996) (saying, “A case is 'moot' when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy.”); Dickerson Carolina, Inc. v. Harrelson, 114 N.C. App. 693, 697, 443 S.E.2d 127, 131, disc. rev. denied, 337 N.C. 691, 448 S.E.2d 520 (1994) (saying a court should declare a matter moot “[w]henever during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue.”)
    Dismissed.
    Judges HUNTER and LEVINSON concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***