Where the respondent-father’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief, told respondent he could file a pro se brief, and provided him with the relevant documents, but where respondent filed a document which asks for more time and broadly asserts that the trial court’s “fact finding was flawed because it was influenced by specious testimony & acts,” no issues have been argued or preserved for review in accordance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We dismiss respondent’s appeal of the order terminating his parental rights.
Inasmuch as respondent’s argument presents a request to hold his appeal in abeyance, we deny the request. Moreover, respondent’s sole argument on appeal – that the trial court’s fact finding was flawed – is a bare assertion of error unsupported by citation to any record evidence or legal authority, and it is thus not properly before this court.
(Arrowood, J.) For the reasons discussed in my concurrence in In re L.E.M., (Oct. 2, 2018) (No. COA18-380) (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-306-18), I concur in the result only.
(McGee, C.J.) I dissent for the reasons discussed in my dissenting opinion in In re L.E.M.
In re I.P. (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-307-18, 11 pp.) (Robert Hunter, J.) (John Arrowood, J., concurring in the result only) (Linda McGee, J., dissenting) Appealed from Pitt County District Court (P. Gwynett Hilburn, J.) Timothy Heinle for petitioner; Joyce Terres for respondent; respondent, pro se; Matthew Wunsche for guardian ad litem. N.C. App.