A respondent's failure to object "to the trial court's taking judicial notice of [ ] underlying juvenile case files ... waive[s] appellate review" of the issue. In re W.L.M. , 181 N.C. App. 518, 522, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2007).Here, DSS asked the trial court to take judicial notice of "the file in this case" and then specifically asked the court to take notice of a non-secure custody order filed on 6 February 2018.

The trial court may also “take judicial notice of earlier proceedings in the same case.” In re W.L.M., 181 N.C.App. 518, 523, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2007) (citations omitted). The trial court received into evidence the written reports prepared by DSS and the GAL. The trial court found the contents of their reports to be credible and incorporated them by reference into its order, based on the sworn testimony of the DSS social worker and the GAL program supervisor.

As such, "`the record include[d] a copy of an order, in effect when the petition[s] [were] filed, that award[ed] DSS custody of the child[ren].'" In re W.L.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 640 S.E.2d 439, 444 (2007) (quoting T.B., 177 N.C. App. at 793, 629 S.E.2d at 897). Additionally, respondent fails to cite any prejudice due to DSS's error, and none is apparent on the record.

In cases where the trial court does take judicial notice of earlier proceedings, “the trial court is presumed to have disregarded any incompetent evidence.” In re W.L.M. & B.J.M.,181 N.C.App. 518, 523, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2007). In W.L.M.,the respondent argued that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the prior orders and court reports in the juvenile's underlying case files.

As respondent-mother did not object to the evidence, she has waived any challenges to the admission of the evidence on appeal. See N.C.R.App. P. 10(b)(1); see alsoIn re W.L.M., 181 N.C.App. 518, 522, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2007) (citation omitted) (" At trial, respondent did not object to the trial court's taking judicial notice of the underlying juvenile case files ... and, therefore, has waived appellate review of this issue." ).

Respondent mother has, therefore, failed to establish that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See also In re W.L.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 640 S.E.2d 439, 444 (2007) (holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, despite failure to attach custody order, when motion referred to juvenile file and custody order in effect when motion was filed, there was no dispute over who had custody, and trial court took judicial notice of underlying case files that included custody order). Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906(b)(5) (2005). The trial court fully satisfied this requirement with findings of fact numbers 2 and 3, in which the court found that the Johnsons were the juveniles' custodians and the Johnsons were designated as guardians of the juveniles on October 27, 2005. Respondent did not assign error to these findings, and thus, they are deemed binding on appeal. See In re W.L.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 640 S.E.2d 439, 441 (2007). The trial court, however, failed to make findings with respect to sections 7B-906(b)(1), (3), and (4). First, pursuant to section 7B-906(b)(1), the trial court was required to find that the juveniles had resided with a relative or been in the custody of another suitable person for at least one year.

er jurisdiction upon the trial court); In re T.B., 177 N.C.App. 790, 629 S.E.2d 895 (holding that because the petition did not have a copy of the custody order, the petition failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court); but seeIn reB.D., 174 N.C.App. 234, 242, 620 S.E.2d 913, 918 (2005) (holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the child's placement, the petition noted that “custody of [the child] was given by prior orders[,]" the respondent admitted that the child was “in the legal custody of the Buncombe County Department of Social Services," and the respondents were present at pre-termination hearings in which custody was [184 N.C.App. 391] granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined), In reW.L.M., 181 N.C.App. 518, 640 S.E.2d 439 (2007) (holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time, the motion to terminate stated that DSS was given legal custody of the minor children, and the record included a copy of an order, in effect when the motion was filed, that awarded DSS custody of the children). We follow the reasoning of B.D. and W.L.M. and conclude that Z.T.B. and T.B. are distinguishable from the instant case.

We also note that respondent did not, at any point, object to the delay. SeeIn re W.L.M., 181 N.C.App. 518, __, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442-42 (2007) (holding that the delayed hearing on termination of respondent's parental rights was not prejudicial even though held one hundred and sixty-nine days after DSS filed the petition to terminate, because “[e]ach continuance granted by the trial court was necessary [,]" and “[a]t no time did respondent object to any delay or continuance" ). In light of Inre C.L.C. and In re W.L.M., we conclude that respondent has failed to explain in this argument how the delay prejudiced her, and it is without merit.

However, in termination of parental rights cases, the evidence on which the trial court relies may consist of more than simply the testimony presented at the hearing because "this Court repeatedly has held that a trial court may take judicial notice of earlier proceedings in the same case." In re W.L.M., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 640 S.E.2d 439, 442 (2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, when taking judicial notice of previous orders in a termination of parental rights case, there is a "well-established supposition that the trial court in a bench trial `is presumed to have disregarded any incompetent evidence.'"