Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct an inquiry into whether respondent should be appointed a guardian ad litem under Rule 17 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support its conclusion that respondent's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) (2019); whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that respondent's parental rights be terminated.

Termination of parental rights; no-merit brief.

Defendant was charged with speeding under N.C.G.S. 20-141(j1). Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing his waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary under N.C.G.S. 15A-1201. Defendant appeals to this Court arguing the Court of Appeals erred when it held that he was not prejudiced by the trial court's error and that his waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Defendant petitions for review of the Court of Appeals decision holding that there was no error in his conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon arguing that the trial court failed to intervene ex mero motu to the State's misstatements during closing arguments.

Respondent-parents appeal the termination of their parental rights.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by finding by clear and convincing evidence that respondent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent.

Impermissible vouching regarding a child's credibility/believability; continued use of the word 'disclose' constituting impermissible vouching; admission of domestic violence evidence; plain error.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine based upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered at trial.

Sufficiency of the evidence to show that starvation proximately caused the decedent's death; whether a separate showing of malice is necessary to support a conviction for first-degree murder on the basis of starvation; and whether there was a fatal variance between an indictment charging negligent child abuse and the evidence upon which defendant's conviction rested.