he made weekly calls to H.D., all of which “did not deal with whether his daughter called him ldaddy’[.]” However, petitioner testified that “[respondent] tells her that . . . we’re her pretend daddy and not her real mommy and daddy[;] . . . [that] she’s been a bad little girl and Jesus doesn’t like it; he’s watching[;]... that we’re trying to steal her from him.” Petitioner said, respondent “continuefs] to tell her that we’re the reason that he can’t visit.” Petitioner stated that respondent “was very antagonistic with me [when he called], [and] tried to engage me in arguments.” We conclude that respondent’s argument as to this finding is unpersuasive, and that the finding is supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. See In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. at 511, 491 S.E.2d at 676 (<HOLDING>). Respondent generally argues that the
holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error