In re D.L.W., 368 N.C. 835, 843, 788 S.E.2d 162, 167 (2016). "A parent's failure to make progress in completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect." In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 48, 859 S.E.2d 196, 205 (2021) (citation omitted); see also In re N.B., 377 N.C. 349, 360, 856 S.E.2d 828, 838 (2021) ("[R]espondent's compliance with a portion of her case plan does not preclude a finding of neglect."

See In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 58-59, 859 S.E.2d 196, 210-11 (2021) (upholding ground of neglect in part based on the parent's inadequate engagement in remedial services, inability to grasp parenting concepts, and inability to understand the needs of their children); In re C.M.P., 254 N.C.App. at 660, 803 S.E.2d at 861 (upholding ground of neglect in part based on the parent's unstable housing and improper supervision of their children).

"A parent's failure to make progress in completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect." In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 48, 859 S.E.2d 196, 205 (2021) (quoting In re M.A., 374 N.C. 865, 870, 844 S.E.2d 916 (2020)).

However, the "trial court need not make a finding as to every fact which arises from the evidence; rather, the court need only find those facts which are material to the resolution of the dispute." In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 54, 859 S.E.2d 196, 208 (2021) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court made several findings regarding Mother's circumstances at the time of the hearing, including:

We have repeatedly used this standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s disposition order, as has the Court of Appeals. In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 60, 859 S.E.2d 196 (2021); In re K.N.K., 374 N.C. 50, 57, 839 S.E.2d 735 (2020); In re A.J.A-D., No. COA19-270, slip op. at 11, 2020 WL 549628 (Feb. 4, 2020) (unpublished) (Dietz, J., with Stroud and Hampson, JJ.) ("However, when making its best interests determination, the trial court need only make dispositional findings that are ‘supported by competent evidence.’ By employing the heightened ‘clear, cogent and convincing standard of proof in making its dispositional findings, the trial court misapplied the relevant evidentiary standard.’ "

Furthermore, N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) "does not require the trial court to make written findings regarding any dispositional alternatives it considered." In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40, 2021-NCSC-76 ¶ 51, 859 S.E.2d 196. Here, the trial court's findings demonstrate that it considered the dispositional factors set forth in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1110(a) and "performed a reasoned analysis weighing those factors."

See, e.g. , In re D.W.P. , 373 N.C. 327, 328, 838 S.E.2d 396 (2020) (affirming order terminating respondent's parental rights "[a]fter careful consideration of ... the record evidence[.]"); In re M.S.E. , 378 N.C. 40, 2021-NCSC-76, ¶ 13, 859 S.E.2d 196 (affirming order terminating respondent's parental rights "[a]fter careful review of the record[.]"); In re A.M.L. , 377 N.C. 1, 2021-NCSC-21, ¶ 18, 855 S.E.2d 439 (affirming trial court finding because "[t]he record supports this determination.").

"A parent's failure to make progress in completing a case plan is indicative of a likelihood of future neglect." In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 48 (2021).

These findings support the trial court’s conclusion that there was a likelihood of future neglect by Mother. See R.L.R., 381 N.C. at 875, 874 S.E.2d at 589 (determining that parents are "required to demonstrate acknowledgement and understanding of why the juvenile entered DSS custody as well as changed behaviors"); see also In re M.S.E., 378 N.C. 40, 58-59, 859 S.E.2d 196, 210-11 (2021) (upholding ground of neglect in part based on the parent’s inadequate engagement in remedial services and inability to understand the needs of their children). [17] Because the trial court’s findings support its conclusions of law that there was a previous adjudication of neglect and a likelihood of future neglect if Billy was returned to Mother’s care, the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1).

According to the Continuance Order, the trial court determined Mother needed a GAL based upon her "inability to understand the proceedings and cultural barriers " The record also shows Mother is Albaman and Muslim, and English is not her first language The trial court did not note any type of incompetency as defined by North Carolina General Statute Section 35A-1101(7) See generally In re M S E , 378 N C 40, 44, 859 S E 2d 196, 203 (2021) ("An ‘incompetent adult’ is defined as one ‘who lacks sufficient capacity to manage the adult’s own affairs or to make or communicate important decisions concerning the adult’s person, family, or property whether the lack of capacity is due to mental illness, intellectual disability, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, autism, inebriety, senility, disease, injury, or similar cause or condition ’ N C G S § 35A-1101(7) (2019)") The trial court did not address the requirements of North Carolina General Statute Section 7B-602, which provides that "[a]t the first hearing, the court shall dismiss the provisional counsel if the respondent parent [h]as retained counsel."