In re J.W., 241 N.C. App. 44 (2015)

Recognizing the common practice that district court orders are drafted by counsel for a party, “it is not per se reversible error for a trial court’s fact findings to mirror the wording of a petition or other pleading prepared by a party.” A review of the record (in this case, a four day hearing) demonstrated the findings were based on evidence presented to the court, the court used logical reasoning, and the court found the ultimate facts necessary to adjudicate the juveniles neglected. This case distinguishes earlier decisions: In re Anderson found as fact “the grounds alleged” rather than the (non)existence of the facts so alleged, and In re O.W. recited testimony rather than find facts.