the trial court’s findings fail to explain, however, why Ilka could not be returned home immediately or within the next six months, and why it is not in her best interests to return home. See In re Everett, 161 N.C. App. 475, 480, 588 S.E.2d 579, 583 (2003) (when a child is not returned home, section 7B-907(b)(l) requires the court to find whether it is possible to return a child to her home immediately or within the next six months, and if not possible, the court must explain why.). The trial court made no findings that respondent-father has failed to progress according to the reunification plan, that he has refused to do what the court required of him, or that his current housing situation would be harmful to Ilka. Cf. In re R.A.H., 182 N.C. App. 52, 58, 641 S.E.2d 404, 408 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Although the trial court’s findings that Ilka
holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing holding that a mother and her two children failed to establish a  1983 claim where there was no evidence that threats made to the mother were directly aimed at the relationship between parent and child holding that an order ceasing reunification efforts and awarding foster parents guardianship was supported where the child was being harmed by the lack of permanency the mother had not made progress toward reunification despite reasonable efforts from dss and the mother had failed to remedy the risks associated with returning the child to her home