With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". To the contrary, in an order entered 28 February 2006, the court specifically retained jurisdiction “for further orders.” We conclude that the trial court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to enter the order terminating respondent’s parental rights after jurisdiction attached on 28 March 2003, when the North Carolina court entered an order as to the custody of H.D. Since jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is exclusive and continuing, the courts of North Carolina still had jurisdiction over H.D. to enter an order terminating respondent’s parental rights, even though H.D. resided in Alabama with the custodial guardians, because the requisites of “substantial connection” jurisdiction pursuant to Section 201 were met. This assignment of error is overruled. II: Motions to Dismiss In (2007) (<HOLDING>). We follow the reasoning of B.D. and W.L.M.

A: 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
B: holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children
C: holding that the uccja applied to a california child custody order granting temporary custody of two children to their father
D: holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period
A.