See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-3800, Art. II(d).           We also note that the dissent's reliance on In reL.L., 172 N.C.App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005) , is misplaced. In that case, this Court held that “a child cannot be placed with an out-of-state relative until favorable completion of an ICPC [(Compact)] home study."

The paternal grandmother also indicated that she had difficulty reconciling Amanda's claims of abuse with respondent father's claims of innocence. Respondent father cites In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005), in support of his contention that the trial court erred in not placing the children with their paternal grandmother. In In re L.L., the trial court placed the juvenile with foster parents instead of placing her with relatives who were willing and able to care for her, even though DSS, the parents of the child, and the child's guardian ad litem all stipulated to placement with the relatives.

See In re J.L.K., 165 N.C. App. 311, 315-16, 598 S.E.2d 387, 390-91, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 68, 604 S.E.2d 314 (2004) (order for termination of parental rights); see also, In re E.N.S., 164 N.C. App. 146, 153-54, 595 S.E.2d 167, 171-72, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 189, 606 S.E.2d 903 (2004) (adjudication and disposition orders). In In re L.L., ___ N.C. App. ___, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005), our Court applied harmless error review to its determination of whether the untimely filing of a review order warranted reversal. Id. at ___, 616 S.E.2d at 397-98.

For a discussion of when an order is entered see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2003), Stachlowski v. Stach, 328 N.C. 276, 401 S.E.2d 638 (1991), and In re Hayes, 106 N.C.App. 652, 418 S.E.2d 304 (1992). See also In re L.L., ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 616 S.E.2d 392, 397 (2005). On 10 February 2003, the district court conducted a permanency planning hearing.

Specifically, as part of merely "[a]ssuming the ICPC applies in this case[,]" the Majority Opinion cites to In re J.E. , 182 N.C. App. 612, 643 S.E.2d 70 (2007) and says it holds the ICPC does not apply to a grant of guardianship to out-of-state grandparents. While the Majority Opinion accurately states In re J.E. ’s holding, seeid. at 615, 643 S.E.2d at 72, the Majority does not acknowledge this Court's opinion in In re J.D.M.-J. The In re J.D.M.-J. Court concluded, after an analysis under In re Civil Penalty , 324 N.C. 373, 379 S.E.2d 30 (1989), this Court is not bound by In re J.E. SeeIn re J.D.M.-J. , 260 N.C. App. 56, 63, 817 S.E.2d 755, 760 (2018) (determining In re J.E. and the other case the Majority Opinion cites, In re V.A. , 221 N.C. App. 637, 727 S.E.2d. 901 (2012), "are in conflict" before concluding "we are bound by" In re V.A. and an earlier case on which it relies, In re L.L. , 172 N.C. App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005), abrogated in part on other grounds byIn re T.H.T. , 362 N.C. 446, 450-53, 665 S.E.2d 54, 57-59 (2008) ). Instead, as In re J.D.M.-J. states by relying on the other case cited by the Majority Opinion ( In re V.A. ), under the ICPC, "custody placement with ... out-of-state relatives ... trigger[s] the requirements of the ICPC." SeeIn re J.D.M.-J. , 260 N.C. App. at 63, 817 S.E.2d at 760 (citing In re V.A. , 221 N.C. App. at 640-41, 727 S.E.2d at 904 )

This Court, in the case of In re L.L. , incorporated the requirement set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-903, that a trial court "shall" first give consideration to placement of a juvenile with relatives, before it may order the juvenile into placement with a nonrelative by a permanency planning order entered pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906. In re L.L. , 172 N.C. App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005), abrogated on other grounds byIn re T.H.T. , 362 N.C. 446, 665 S.E.2d 54 (2008). Section 7B-906 was repealed and replaced by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.1.

This Court has previously interpreted the statutory preference for relative placements in harmony with the ICPC, and held that "a child cannot be placed with an out-of-state relative until favorable completion of an ICPC home study." In re L.L. , 172 N.C. App. 689, 702, 616 S.E.2d 392, 400 (2005) (holding that the statutory preference for relative placement and compliance with the ICPC are not mutually exclusive). Id. at 640, 727 S.E.2d at 904.

The priority to be given a relative placement applies to all review and permanency planning hearings following an initial dispositional hearing. In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 700-03, 616 S.E.2d 392, 399-400 (2005). The juvenile statute provides a two-pronged approach to the consideration of a relative placement.

We have held that a "[f]ailure to make specific findings of fact explaining [why] placement with the relative is not in the juvenile's best interest will result in remand." In re A.S., 203 N.C. App. 140, 141-42, 693 S.E.2d 659, 660 (2010) (citing In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 704, 616 S.E.2d 392, 401 (2005)). The trial court's findings reflect the overall success of the children's placement with the maternal grandparents, which began on 1 March 2015, but express "concerns" about certain "behaviors" stemming from the grandparents' animus toward respondent-father's family.

Finding of fact 9 is supported by previous orders of the trial court, and finding of fact 10 is supported by the home study report submitted by Mr. Borrero and the testimony of Mr. Borrero, Cortney Godfrey and Tony Godfrey. Relying on In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005), Respondents also argue that the trial court erred in failing to first find that it was not in C.D.L.'s best interests to be placed with the Godfreys before placing him with Mr. and Ms. Lutz. This argument is without merit. In North Carolina, "[a]t the conclusion of the [permanency planning] hearing, the judge shall make specific findings as to the best plan of care to achieve a safe, permanent home for the juvenile within a reasonable time.