In re R.A.H.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[t]he functions of the guardian ad litem and the attorney advocate are not sufficiently similar to allow one to ‘pinch hit’ for the other when the best interest of a juvenile is at stake.”
• “[W]e must presume prejudice where, as here, a child was not represented by a guardian ad litem at a critical stage of the termination proceedings.”
• “The functions of [GAL] and the attorney advocate are not sufficiently similar to allow one to ‘pinch hit’ for the other when the best interest of a juvenile is at stake.”
• \The functions of the guardian ad litem and the attorney advocate are not sufficiently similar to allow one to `pinch hit' for the other when the best interest of a juvenile is at stake.\
• “The functions of the guardian ad litem and the attorney advocate are not sufficiently similar to allow one to ‘pinch hit’ for the other when the best' interest of a juvenile is at stake.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re J.E.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2007-05-15· cited 6×
• In Re JE
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2007-05-15
• In Re Abk
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2008-04-01
• In Re RAH
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2005-07-05
• In Re Jhk
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2010-07-06
• In Re Dwc, Jac
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2010-07-06
• In the Matter of Jhk
  Supreme Court of North Carolina· 2011-06-16
• In re: J.C-B.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2021-03-16
• In re: M.G.B., T.J.B.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2024-05-07
• In re: S.D.H.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2024-11-05
• In re: A.J.B.
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2025-03-19