GREENE, Judge.

George Smith (Defendant) appeals from a domestic violence protective order filed 25 February 2000 in favor of Cassandra Smith (Plaintiff) by and through her mother, Mary E. Smith (Smith).

Plaintiff is the twelve-year-old minor child of Defendant and Smith. In February 2000, Plaintiff resided with her parents, her younger brother, Smith's two daughters from a previous relationship, and Smith's granddaughter. At that time, Defendant, who was recovering from being hospitalized as the result of a manic episode, served as the caregiver of the minor children while Smith worked outside of the home.

On 8 February 2000 and a portion of 9 February 2000, Plaintiff stayed home from school under the care of Defendant because she was sick. Feeling better, Plaintiff returned to school at some time on 9 February 2000. On the evening of 9 February 2000, Plaintiff telephoned her grandmother and reported Defendant had touched her that day in an inappropriate manner. As a result, a complaint was filed with the Department of Human Services (DHS) relating to allegations of abuse by Defendant of Plaintiff and her brother. On 14 February 2000, Defendant voluntarily entered into a child protection plan with DHS, under which Defendant agreed not to be in the presence of Plaintiff without another adult being present.

Based on Plaintiff's allegations of inappropriate touching by Defendant, an ex parte domestic violence protective order was issued on 14 February 2000, requiring that Defendant leave the marital residence. Subsequent to trial, the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact:

12. Plaintiff testified that on perhaps 30 occasions since Defendant's return from the hospital, Defendant has touched her, either on her buttocks or her chest while she was wearing clothes, and that on some of these occasions he rubbed her on the buttocks area, refusing to stop until she pulled away from him and left the room. Plaintiff testified that [Defendant] made statements to her which made her feel uncomfortable. The only statement Plaintiff was able to recall was that [Defendant] "told her how pretty she was and that he couldn't wait for her to grow up and see what a beautiful woman she would become[."] Plaintiff testified [Defendant] had never physically hurt her, nor was she afraid that he would physically hurt her, but that his touching made her feel very uncomfortable and it was "creepy[.]"

13. In view of the age, size[,] and sexual differences between Plaintiff and Defendant, by inappropriately touching her buttocks and chest area and failing to immediately respond to Plaintiff's request for Defendant to stop, causing Plaintiff to leave the room, Defendant placed Plaintiff in actual fear of imminent serious bodily injury, in the form of an emotional injury arising from Defendant's behavior.

Based on these findings, the trial court made the following conclusion of law:

3. . . . The threat of imminent emotional injury to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's conduct was sufficient to constitute placing Plaintiff in fear of imminent serious bodily injury within the meaning [of] G.S. 50B-1(a) (2).

The trial court, therefore, entered a domestic violence protective order which excluded Defendant from the parties' residence and prohibited Defendant from having any contact with Plaintiff. The order was "effective for six months [and] subject to renewal on or before August 21, 2000."

The issues are whether: (I) issues raised in an appeal from an expired domestic violence protective order are moot and, if not, (II) the trial court's findings of fact support a conclusion that Defendant's actions placed Plaintiff "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

I

Generally, an appeal should be dismissed as moot "[w]hen events occur during the pendency of [the] appeal which cause the underlying controversy to cease to exist." In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 694, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1977). Nevertheless, "even when the terms of the judgment below have been fully carried out, if collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature can reasonably be expected to result therefrom, then the issue is not moot and the appeal has continued legal significance." Id.

In this case, a domestic violence protective order was issued against Defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-1(a) (2). Although the order, which was "effective for six months [and] subject to renewal on or before August 21, 2000," expired prior to the time Defendant's appeal was heard in this Court, Defendant may suffer collateral legal consequences as a result of the entry of the order. Such collateral legal consequences may include consideration of the order by the trial court in any custody action involving Defendant. See N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2(a) (1999) (trial court must consider "acts of domestic violence" when determining the best interest of the child in custody proceeding). Thus, Defendant's appeal has continued legal significance and is not moot.

In addition to the collateral legal consequences, there are numerous non-legal collateral consequences to entry of a domestic violence protective order that render expired orders appealable. For example, a Maryland appellate court in addressing an appeal of an expired domestic violence protective order, noted that "a person applying for a job, a professional license, a government position, admission to an academic institution, or the like, may be asked about whether he or she has been the subject of a [domestic violence protective order]." Piper v. Layman, 726 A.2d 887, 891 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1999). The Piper court, therefore, held appeals from expired domestic violence protective orders are not moot because of the "stigma that is likely to attach to a person judicially determined to have committed [domestic] abuse." Id.; see also Wooldridge v. Hickey, 700 N.E.2d 296, 298 (Mass.App.Ct. 1998) (holding the defendant's appeal of expired domestic violence protective order was not moot). Based on the rationale of Piper, in addition to the continued legal significance of an appeal of an expired domestic violence protective order, we hold the issues raised by an appeal from such an order are not moot.

II

Defendant argues the trial court's findings of fact do not support a conclusion Defendant's actions placed Plaintiff "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." Thus, the trial court erred by entering a domestic violence protective order against Defendant. We agree.

A trial court may grant a protective order "to bring about the cessation of acts of domestic violence." N.C.G.S. § 50B-3(a) (Supp. 2000). An act of domestic violence is defined, in pertinent part, as "[p]lacing the aggrieved party or a member of the aggrieved party's family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(a) (2) (1999). The test for whether the aggrieved party has been placed "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury" is subjective; thus, the trial court must find as fact the aggrieved party "actually feared" imminent serious bodily injury. Brandon v. Brandon, 132 N.C. App. 647, 654, 513 S.E.2d 589, 595 (1999).

In this case, the trial court found as fact that Plaintiff testified Defendant's actions made her feel "uncomfortable" and "`creepy.'" The trial court also found as fact that "Plaintiff testified [Defendant] had never physically hurt her, nor was she afraid that he would physically hurt her." These findings of fact which show Defendant's conduct caused Plaintiff to feel uncomfortable but did not place her in fear of bodily injury do not support a conclusion Defendant placed Plaintiff "in fear of serious imminent bodily injury." Accordingly, the trial court's 25 February 2000 domestic violence protective order is reversed. Although Defendant's conduct did not fall within the definition of an act of domestic violence under section 50B-1(a) (2), we note that Defendant's conduct may fall within the elements of one or more criminal statutes, such as taking indecent liberties with children under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.1.

Reversed.

Judge CAMPBELL concurs.

Judge MCGEE dissents.