guardianship is supported by the evidence, we need not consider whether reunification efforts would be futile because of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-600(b) (2011). Although we have held that a court may order the cessation of reunification efforts if it makes sufficient findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907(d), the court must still make the findings required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-907(b). See In re Dula, 143 N.C. App. 16, 19, 544 S.E.2d 591, 593 (“The department of social services can also be relieved of the obligation of making reasonable efforts if a child has been in placement outside the home for the period of time and under the conditions referenced in section 7B-907(d).”), aff’d, 354 N.C. 356, 554 S.E.2d 336 (2001); In re M.R.D.C., 166 N.C. App. 693, 702, 603 S.E.2d 890, 895 (2004) (<HOLDING>), disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 321, 611 S.E.2d
holding that such provisions are valid holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid holding that waiver of miranda rights was valid where  finding  that the defendant initiated the conversation  was  implicit in the district judges denial of the suppression motion  holding that without a valid permanency planning order the trial court was necessarily unable to malm a valid gs  7b907dl finding regarding the nature of the permanent plan emphasis omitted holding that performance may be valid acceptance