With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". second argument, respondent contends that the trial court erred by denying respondent’s motions to dismiss. Specifically, respondent argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the order terminating respondent’s parental rights because petitioners failed to attach a copy of the custody order to the petition for termination in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1104(5) (2005). We disagree. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1103 identifies the parties with standing to petition the trial court for termination of parental rights. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1103; see a holding that because the petition did not have a copy of the custody order, the petition failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court); but see In re B.D., 174 N.C. App. 234, 242, 620 S.E.2d 913, 918 (2005) (<HOLDING>), In re W.L.M., 181 N.C. App. 518, 640 S.E.2d

A: holding that the mclendon standard applied where an agreement between the parties granted the parties joint legal custody of the child with physical custody to the mother and the agreement had been adopted by the trial court
B: holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined
C: holding that the issue of custody was foreign to the dissolution action because the husband was not the natural father but that the husband could seek to intervene to assert a thirdparty custody claim in a pending custody modification proceeding between the childs natural parents
D: 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.