correspondence with petitioner. See In re Graham, 63 N.C. App. 146, 151, 303 S.E.2d 624, 627 (1983) (“[t]he fact that the respondent was incarcerated for a good portion of this period does not provide any justification for his all but total failure to communicate with or even inquire about his children”) (citing In re Burney, 57 N.C. App. 203, 291 S.E.2d 177 (1982)). Even though the trial court found that respondent claimed to have drawn pictures of Disney characters on some of those letters for the purpose of entertaining the minor child, respondent admitted having sent his last letter to petitioner sometime in 1998. The trial court also noted only one telephone call by respondent to petitioner, in September 1999, during which he claims to have asked about the minor child. See id. (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Furthermore, even though
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that a twoyear delay weighed heavily against the government when the arresting officer knew where the defendant lived and worked and made only weak efforts to contact the defendant holding no abuse of discretion where judge had personal relationship with government witnesses but had not had contact with them for over ten years holding that one communication in a twoyear period does not evidence the personal contact love and affection that inheres in the parental relationship  holding that normal attorneyclient relationship does not bar rule 60b relief when the evidence is clear that the attorney and his client were not acting as one