This conclusion required the exercise of judgment and is more properly classified as a conclusion of law, rather than a finding of fact. SeeIn re J.R.S., 258 N.C. App. at 617, 813 S.E.2d at 286 (marks omitted) ("A determination regarding the best interest of a child is a conclusion of law because it requires the exercise of judgment."); see alsoHuml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 400, 826 S.E.2d 532, 548 (2019). As Findings of Fact 6 and 39 are more properly classified as conclusions of law, we review them de novo to determine whether they are supported by the findings of fact.

See Respess, 232 N.C. App. 611, 754 S.E.2d 691. Huml v. Huml, 264 N.C. App. 376, 394–95, 826 S.E.2d 582, 545 (2019) (formatting altered).

Id. (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 387–89, 826 S.E.2d 532, 541–42 (2019). B. Findings of Fact

’ " Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 399–400, 826 S.E.2d 532, 548 (2019) (quoting Respess , 232 N.C. App. at 615–16, 754 S.E.2d at 696 ) (alterations from original, citations, and quotations omitted). ¶ 48 Here, the trial court made extensive, detailed Findings as to Mother's actions and the effect those actions had on her children.

Mother contends that Balawejder was decided contrary to the prior established precedent of our appellate courts and, therefore, does not control on the issue before us. Father agrees that if two opinions are directly conflicting on an issue, the earlier opinion controls and, as to the relevant issue, the reasoning and holdings of the later opinion would be a nullity. ¶ 6 Both parties cite Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 826 S.E.2d 532 (2019), acknowledging "that if there is a conflicting line of cases, this Court" is "bound to follow" "the older of the two cases." In Huml , this Court held:

In re Montgomery , 311 N.C. 101, 109, 316 S.E.2d 246, 251 (1984).In Huml v. Huml , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 826 S.E.2d 532 (2019), this Court affirmed the trial court's order prohibiting defendant from obtaining "any information concerning the minor child including, but not limited to, requesting information through third party care givers, teachers, medical professionals, instructors or coaches[,]" where the findings of fact supported a determination that such prohibition was in the child's best interest. Id. at 540.

The "[t]ermination of parental rights makes a child available for adoption by another person, rendering the child a legal stranger to the biological parent." Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 398, 826 S.E.2d 532, 547 (2019) (citing In re Estate of Edwards , 316 N.C. 698, 706, 343 S.E.2d 913, 918 (1986) ). A decree that a biological parent be allowed to continue to co-parent a minor child is at odds with the determination that the complete and permanent severance of parental rights and obligations is in the juvenile's best interests.

"An order terminating the parental rights completely and permanently terminates all rights and obligations of the parent to the juvenile and of the juvenile to the parent arising from the parental relationship[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1112 (2021); see generally Huml v. Huml, 264 N.C.App. 376, 398, 826 S.E.2d 532, 547 (2019) ("Termination of parental rights makes a child available for adoption by another person, rendering the child a legal stranger to the biological parent." (citing In re Estate of Edwards, 316 N.C. 698, 706, 343 S.E.2d 913, 918 (1986))); see, e.g., Gorsuch v. Dees, 173 N.C.App. 223, 226, 618 S.E.2d 747, 750 (2005) (holding the respondent-father's "rights and responsibilities as a biological, putative, or any other category of [parent] ceased upon the termination of his parental rights"). Moreover, "the trial court may enforce the order" terminating parental rights during the pendency of an appeal of the order.

If the tests from Cryan and Kelly were to lead to different outcomes, we would need to address this potential conflict in precedent. See, e.g.,Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 395, 826 S.E.2d 532, 545 (2019) (explaining how to resolve "a conflict in cases issued by this Court addressing an issue"). ¶ 54

This discretion is based upon the trial courts’ opportunity to see the parties; to hear the witnesses; and to detect tenors, tones, and flavors that are lost in the bare printed record[.]" Huml v. Huml , 264 N.C. App. 376, 388, 826 S.E.2d 532, 541 (2019) (citation omitted).C. Child Custody Order