The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.In re M.K., 241 N.C. App. 467, 470, 773 S.E.2d 535, 537-38 (2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). V. Respondent-mother's Issues

Without adjudicated findings of fact this Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the conclusions of law and test the correctness of the trial court's judgment. In re M.K., 241 N.C.App. 467, 470-71, 773 S.E.2d 535, 538 (2015) (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).

In re J.W., 241 N.C.App. 44, 48, 772 S.E.2d 249, 253 (2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). While this Court has strongly discouraged the verbatim recitation of allegations, see In re M.K., 241 N.C.App. 467, 471, 773 S.E.2d 535, 539 (2015), this Court has also clarified that, 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.

In this review, we must address several discrepancies in the trial court's findings. In re M.K., 241 N.C.App. 467, 471, 773 S.E.2d 535, 538 (2015) (noting that trial court's findings are required "to reflect a true reconciliation and adjudication of all facts in evidence to enable the appellate courts to review the trial court's conclusions.").

Therefore, these recitations from the petition are not evidentiary findings that resolve conflicts in the evidence presented to the trial court, nor do they establish facts the court independently found after considering the evidence. See In re M.K., 241 N.C. App. 467, 471, 773 S.E.2d 535, 538 (2015) (citation omitted) ("Our Supreme Court has . . . long required a trial court's findings to reflect a true reconciliation and adjudication of all facts in evidence to enable the appellate courts to review the trial court's conclusions."); see also In re Bullock, 229 N.C. App. 373, 379, 748 S.E.2d 27, 31 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted) ("The trial court must weigh all of the evidence and in its findings, resolve the conflicts raised, as recitations of the testimony of each witness do not constitute findings of fact by the trial judge."). The trial court's recitations of the allegations from the petition fail to resolve conflicts raised by the evidence - such as the fact that grandmother's testimony contradicted many of the allegations attributed to her in the petition - or establish basic facts about the case, such as the exact nature of the events of the night of 6 June 2017, or whether the allegations in the prior reports received by DSS regarding Respondents were substa

As a result of the foregoing principles, this Court has repeatedly stated that the trial court's findings must consist of more than a recitation of the allegations contained in the juvenile petition.In re M.K. (I), ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 773 S.E.2d 535, 538 (2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, "[o]ur Supreme Court has . . . long required a trial court's findings to reflect a true reconciliation and adjudication of all facts in evidence to enable the appellate courts to review the trial court's conclusions."

"[E]vidence of a child's continued exposure to domestic violence may constitute an environment injurious to the juvenile's welfare." In re M.K. (I), 241 N.C.App. 467, 475, 773 S.E.2d 535, 541 (2015).

We agree that the Record reflects the trial court appears to have acted under a "misapprehension of the law" by conducting the in-chambers meeting on remand and that such a misapprehension warrants remand. SeeIn re M.K. , 241 N.C. App. 467, 475, 773 S.E.2d 535, 541 (2015) ("Our Supreme Court has held that ‘where it appears that the judge below has ruled upon matter before him upon a misapprehension of the law, the cause will be remanded ... for further hearing in the true legal light.’ ") (quoting Capps v. Lynch , 253 N.C. 18, 22, 116 S.E.2d 137, 141 (1960) )

Instead, the trial court simply recited verbatim the allegations from DSS's petition. SeeIn re M.K. , 241 N.C. App. 467, 470–71, 773 S.E.2d 535, 538–39 (2015). However, for the following reasons, I disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion with respect to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to find Riley resided in an injurious environment.

¶ 34 "Reversal is warranted where a trial court acts under a misapprehension of the law." In re M.K. , 241 N.C. App. 467, 475, 773 S.E.2d 535, 541 (2015). "[W]here it appears that the judge below has ruled upon [a] matter before him upon a misapprehension of the law, the cause will be remanded ... for further hearing in the true legal light."