Father is correct; we have previously held that "where a trial court failed to make any findings regarding reasonable efforts at reunification, the trial court's directive to DSS to file a petition to terminate [a parent's] parental rights implicitly also directed DSS to cease reasonable efforts at reunification." In re A.P.W., ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 741 S.E.2d 388, 390–91, disc. review denied, – –– N.C. ––––, 747 S.E.2d 251 (2013) (citations and quotations omitted). We hold that the trial court's order to file a petition to terminate parental rights implicitly ceased reunification with father.

¶ 58 An order may implicitly cease reunification efforts if the order's effect is the cessation of reunification efforts. In re A.P.W. , 225 N.C. App. 534, 537-38, 741 S.E.2d 388, 390-91, disc. rev. denied , 367 N.C. 215, 747 S.E.2d 251 (2013). That the order does not expressly cease reunification efforts is irrelevant.

This Court has alluded to this interpretation. See In re A.P.W. , 225 N.C. App. 534, 537, 741 S.E.2d 388, 390 (2013) (agreeing with respondent-mother that "the order, while not explicitly ceasing reunification efforts, implicitly did so by changing the permanent plan to adoption and ordering the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights"); see also In re J.N.S. , 207 N.C. App. 670, 680, 704 S.E.2d 511, 518 (2010) ("Although the trial court failed to make any findings regarding reasonable efforts at reunification ... the trial court effectively determined that reunification efforts ... should cease when it ordered DSS to file a petition to terminate respondent mother's parental rights.").To avoid confusion of our DSS workers and trial courts and to promote permanency for children in these cases, we encourage the North Carolina General Assembly to amend these statutes to clarify their limitations.

2015 N.C. Sess. Laws 136. See also In re N.B., 240 N.C. App. 353, 362, 771 S.E.2d 562, 568 (2015) (stating the order effectively ceased reunification efforts by (1) eliminating reunification as a goal of the permanent plan, (2) establishing a permanent plan of guardianship, and (3) transferring custody to the guardians); In re A.E.C., 239 N.C. App. 36, 41-42, 768 S.E.2d 166, 170 (2015) (holding an order changing the permanent plan to adoption and ordering DSS to file a petition to terminate parental rights implicitly ceased reunification with the respondent-father); and In re A.P.W., 225 N.C. App. 534, 537-38, 741 S.E.2d 388, 390-91 (2013) (holding the trial court's order changing the permanent plan to adoption and directing DSS to terminate parental rights implicitly ceased reunification efforts). Under the current framework of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2, the trial court is required to:

This Court has previously held that "where a trial court failed to make any findings regarding reasonable efforts at reunification, the trial court's directive to DSS to file a petition to terminate [a parent's] parental rights implicitly also directed DSS to cease reasonable efforts at reunification." In re A.E.C. , 239 N.C. App. 36, 42, 768 S.E.2d 166, 170 (2015) (citing In re A.P.W. , 225 N.C. App. 534, 741 S.E.2d 388, disc. review denied, 367 N.C. 215, 747 S.E.2d 251 (2013) ). However, In re A.E.C. and the other cases cited by Respondent-Mother were decided prior to 1 October 2015, when N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2 was enacted.

We agree with Mother that the order effectively ceases reunification efforts by (1) eliminating reunification as a goal of Noah and Lindsay's permanent plan, (2) establishing a permanent plan of guardianship with Mr. and Ms. Smith, and (3) transferring custody of the children from YFS to their legal guardians.Cf. In re A.E.C., ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 768 S.E.2d 166, 170 (2015) (noting "the order need not explicitly cease reunification efforts"); In re A.P.W., ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 741 S.E.2d 388, 391 (2013) (finding an implicit ceasing of reunification efforts where the court changed the permanent plan to adoption and ordered DSS to seek termination of parental rights). However, we also believe and, therefore, hold that the findings exhibit that the trial court considered the factor.

This Court determined in In re A.P.W. that an order which directs the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights and changes the permanent plan to adoption has implicitly ordered the cessation of reunification efforts. – –– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 741 S.E.2d 388, 391 ("As in [In re] J.N.S., [ 207 N.C.App. 670, 704 S.E.2d 511 (2010) ] the trial court in the instant case directed DSS to file a petition to terminate parental rights. Moreover, the trial court here changed the permanent plan to adoption, and respondent-mother properly preserved her right to appeal the cessation of reunification efforts pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B–507(c).