entered. The district court did not err in concluding that termination of appellant’s parental rights was justified under four statutory grounds, and the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. Affirmed. 1 . J.M.'s father, A.M., made no appearance at the termination trial, and his parental rights to J.M. were also terminated. The father has not appealed. 2 . Appellant presently retains parental rights to another child. 3 . The abatement doctrine, as applied in criminal cases, implicates a number of policy concerns. Although the doctrine was historically based on the view that criminal convictions serve a purely punitive function, modern views have shifted to a broader view of the criminal justice system. Carlin, 249 P.3d at 758; Bevel, 111 S.E.2d at 794 (<HOLDING>). Abatement undermines those goals, including
recognizing that abatement rests on the outdated premise that criminal convictions and sentences serve only to punish the convicted holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion holding sentences include all consequences of convictions