"However, even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal." In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C.App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). B. Analysis

"However, even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal." In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). "On appeal from an adjudication of neglect, abuse, or dependency, this Court must determine (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the legal conclusions are supported by the findings of fact."

The fact that the safety-plan option is a boon to parents may explain why, though similar options are offered by other states, see, e.g., In re T.A., 279 Ga.App. 377, 631 S.E.2d 399, 400 (Ga.App. 2006); In re M.G.T.-B, 629 S.E.2d 916, 917-19 (N.C.App. 2006), lawsuits challenging them have been rare — indeed this is the first we've found. A safety plan seems a sensible, perhaps indeed an unavoidable, partial solution to the agonizingly difficult problem of balancing the right of parents to the custody and control of their children with the children's right to be protected against abuse and neglect.

In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C.App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). "The well-established rule is that findings of fact by the trial court supported by competent evidence are binding on the appellate courts even if the evidence would support a contrary finding."

“However, even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal.” In re M.G.T.-B, 177 N.C.App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). “A defendant is prejudiced by errors ... when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.”

Assuming without deciding the Weaver Affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay, Defendant falls short of demonstrating the kind of prejudice necessary for this Court to reverse the trial court's order. See In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006) ("[E]ven when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal."). Defendant contends the error was prejudicial error because the Weaver Affidavit was the only evidence at the attorney's fees hearing to support finding of fact 29, which states:

Assuming without deciding the Weaver Affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay, Defendant falls short of demonstrating the kind of prejudice necessary for this Court to reverse the trial court's order. See In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006) ("[E]ven when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal."). Defendant contends the error was prejudicial error because the Weaver Affidavit was the only evidence at the attorney's fees hearing to support finding of fact 29, which states:

Thus, even when the trial court errs by admitting hearsay evidence, an appellant must show that the error was prejudicial to prevail on appeal. In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). Findings of fact which are not challenged on appeal are binding and conclusive. Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991).

Even when the trial court does err in admitting hearsay evidence, a showing must be made that the error was prejudicial to warrant reversal. In re M.G.T.-B., 177 N.C. App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). An error in the admission of evidence is not prejudicial if other evidence supports the findings.

It is well established that " even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements, one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal." In re M.G.T.-B, 177 N.C.App. 771, 775, 629 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006). We do note, however, that the trial court's findings of fact related to the material contained in the challenged testimony appear to be explaining why DSS took certain actions. Thus, the trial court found that DSS asked the parents to place the children with an appropriate caretaker based on the lacerated arm issue, and DSS filed the neglect petitions shortly after the June 2005 altercation because the parents continued to participate in domestic violence disputes.