S Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges Deprivation Case Law Update

December 2002 to October 2003

In the Interest of A. B. & T. B.

Date 3/19/2003 Docket Number A03A0930 260 Ga. App. 428, 579 S.E.2d 779 Butts Juvenile Court. Before Judge Whitwell.

PHIPPS, Judge. Blackburn, P.J., and Ellington, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to A.B. and T.B. on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support a determination that any cause of the children's deprivation is likely to continue. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed. The children were found deprived in May 2000. A psychological evaluation on the mother diagnosed her with major depressive disorder with psychotic features, severe post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. During the first half of 2001, the mother was hospitalized several times due to mental health problems. In the summer of 2001, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia. A November 2001 psychological evaluation revealed self-inflicted wounds. Additionally, the mother continued to use cocaine and failed to take her medication and attend her mental health treatment program regularly. In October 2002, the mother again tested positive for cocaine and admitted to using alcohol. The mother was unemployed and borrowing money from friends to buy cocaine. Due to the mother's unrehabilitated abuse of cocaine and alcohol, the psychiatrist no longer felt that the mother would be capable of caring for her children.

In the Interest of A.M.

Date 2/11/2003 Docket Number A02A1696 259 Ga. App. 537, 578 S.E.2d 226 Houston Juvenile Court. Before Judge Deborah Edwards.

ADAMS, Judge. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Ruffin, P.J., and Barnes, J., concur.

The mother appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to A.M., B.M., and D.M. She contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the children's deprivation was likely to continue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order for termination. The evidence showed that the mother continued to allow her boyfriend in her home after she learned that he fathered her older, minor daughter's child. Additionally, she had at least some contact with the boyfriend after finding out that he had sexual relations with A.M. There was evidence that the mother failed to appreciate such relationships were inappropriate and harmful to the children. She failed to maintain employment and obtain counseling to help meet her children's needs as required by DFCS. The Court noted that the trial court is entitled to consider evidence of the mother's past actions in determining whether the deprivation is likely to continue and is not bound by mere promises to do better in the future.

In the Interest of B.D.G.

Date 8/21/2003 Docket Number A03A1637 Spalding Juvenile Court. Before A. Ronald Cook.

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. Smith, C.J., and Miller, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of B.D.G. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and authorizing DFCS to pursue the goal of adoption. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. In October 2002, the juvenile court found B.D.G. deprived due to health and safety hazards in the home. Testimony showed hazardous debris in the yard, broken and missing windows, loose wires, car parts in the child's bedroom, and the use of the stove to heat the house. Given the mother's prior history with DFCS, the juvenile court ordered the mother to comply with the case plan and authorized DFCS to immediately pursue the goal of adoption at the expiration of three months if the mother is not in substantial compliance with the case plan. DFCS filed a complaint for nonreunification. The caseworker testified that the mother had not cleaned all of the hazardous debris from her yard, the light fixtures were not properly wired, only the mother's bedroom had heat and the home was very drafty. Further, the mother had not followed up with counseling and therapy programs. The mother admitted having not completed the case plan requirements but testified that she needed more time. The Court found that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the mother unjustifiably failed to comply with the case plan, raising a presumption that reunification services should not be provided. The Court found that mother pointed to no evidence rebutting that presumption.

In the Interest of B.L.H.

Date 2/6/2003 Docket Number A02A2310 259 Ga. App. 482, 578 S.E.2d 143 Glynn Juvenile Court. Before Judge Donald E. Manning.

PHIPPS, Judge. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Andrews, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur.

The father of B.L.H. appealed the order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to support termination, and the court should have secured his presence at the termination hearing. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed. The evidence showed that father had been in prison for a parole violation for most of B.L.H.'s life. The father failed significantly for over a year to provide for B.L.H.'s care. He never provided any financial support or gifts. He never contacted DFCS about her well-being. The Court found that past conduct of incarceration showed a disregard for B.L.H.'s welfare and suggested that the pattern of deprivation is likely to continue. Additionally, the father showed no interest or capacity to care for B.L.H. during release on parole. A caseworker testified that continued deprivation would likely cause B.L.H. harm. Evidence was presented that B.L.H. had bonded with a great aunt and uncle who had already adopted B.L.H.'s older sibling. The Court held that the father failed to show how he suffered harm by not attending the hearing. The Court noted that the father's criminal activity and incarceration prevented him from availing himself of the opportunity to appear in person. The father was appointed an attorney, who attempted to confer with him, but the father failed to respond. The attorney appeared in his stead and could have presented evidence. The attorney cross-examined DFCS's witness and argued on the father's behalf.

In the Interest of B.N.S.

Date 2/12/2003 Docket Number A02A2173 259 Ga. App. 622, 578 S.E.2d 242 Bartow Juvenile Court. Before Judge Velma C. Tilley.

SMITH, Chief Judge. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Eldridge and Ellington, JJ., concur.

The mother of B.N.S. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights on the basis of insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. The evidence showed that the mother admitted she is a drug addict. At the time of the hearing she was incarcerated serving nine months for pleading guilty to drug charges. Upon release, she would then be on probation for eight years. The mother failed to comply with any goals of her case plan. Mother failed to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment, failed drug screens, failed to obtain a psychological evaluation. She did not have appropriate housing or employment. She missed two out of three scheduled visits with her daughter due to drug use. The mother failed to maintain contact with DFCS and failed to clear up her remaining criminal charges. Testimony of the DFCS caseworker indicated that B.N.S. was thriving in foster care and had bonded with her foster parents who were interested in

adopting her.

In the Interest of C. M. L.

Date 3/21/2003 Docket Number A02A2383 260 Ga. App. 502, 580 S.E.2d 276 Barrow Superior Court. Before Judge McWhorter.

PHIPPS, Judge. Andrews, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

C.J.C.'s biological father appealed the denial of his petition to legitimate C.J.C. in one case, and orders that terminated his parental rights to the child and granted the adoption petition of the child's stepfather in another case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court held that the biological father failed to timely file his discretionary application to review the order denying his legitimation petition. Failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedures deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. Regarding the termination orders and adoption decree, the Court found that the biological father's contentions regarding that case essentially challenged the propriety of the denial of his legitimation petition which the Court of Appeals cannot address for lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the biological father failed to provide a transcript of any of the hearings as part of the appellate record, and so the Court of Appeals presumed that the trial court's order was supported by those parts of the record excluded from the record on appeal.

In the Interest of C.A.R.

Date 2/11/2003 Docket Number A02A1958 259 Ga. App. 550, 578 S.E.2d 219 Bibb Juvenile Court. Before Judge Thomas J. Matthews.

MILLER, Judge. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Johnson, P.J. and Blackburn, P.J., concur.

The parents of C.A.R. and two other minor children appealed the denial of the father's motion to modify a deprivation order that granted custody of the children to their maternal grandmother. The parents contended that the father's legitimation of the children after the original deprivation hearing entitles him to now challenge the original finding of deprivation as a parent who shares equal rights with the mother. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. The father was given proper notice of the original deprivation hearing and offered an opportunity to participate as a party to the proceeding and chose not to participate. The original finding of deprivation was not appealed and is now binding on the parties.

In the Interest of C.B.H.

Date 8/8/2003 Docket Number A03A1062 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 983 Chatham Juvenile Court. Before Judge Juan Ayala.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge. Barnes and Adams, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of C.B.H. and C.L.G. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights, asserting the court erred in finding that the children's deprivation was likely to continue. She further asserted that the court erred in not awarding custody to either her parents or her brother. The mother argued that while in prison she continued to contact the children, took anger management classes, received psychological counseling, and completed her GED. She also stated that the foster mother and the guardian ad litem recommended that her rights not be terminated. The Court, however, found sufficient evidence to support a finding that deprivation is likely to continue. The Court noted that the mother was in jail and unable to give the court any time frame in which she would be able to support and care for the children. Testimony indicated that the mother was not caring for her children before she went to prison and was unable to comply with the case plan before she went to prison. The CASA testified that the mother refused to cooperate with her. The Court found that the trial court was authorized to find that placement of the children with the grandparents or uncle was not in the best interest of the children as there was testimony that they were unwilling to take the children.

In the Interest of D. C. & E. C.

Date 1/9/2003 Docket Number A03A0225 259 Ga. App. 157, 576 S.E.2d 77 DeKalb Juvenile Court. Before Judge Nash.

PHIPPS, Judge. Blackburn, P.J. and Ellington, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Guardian ad litem appealed the juvenile court's finding that DFACS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children are deprived. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The evidence showed that the children were removed because of drug abuse and the resulting criminal conviction. The mother complied with her case plan and the son was returned. He was removed again and the daughter remained in foster care because of concerns of sexual abuse from the maternal grandfather and stepfather. The mother testified the grandfather had no unsupervised access to the children, and the stepfather had done nothing improper. There was no investigation of the allegations of sexual abuse. No witnesses testified to observing inappropriate behavior. Neither child was interviewed. Neither child testified. The goals of the case plan had been completed. There was testimony from a psychologist that the daughter was more heavily bonded to the foster mother, but there was testimony from other witnesses that the mother was well bonded to the son and was in the process of bonding with the daughter. There was testimony that the parents have a suitable home and the ability to parent properly.

In the Interest of D.B.P.

Date 6/26/2003 Docket Number A03A0140 262 Ga. App. 1, 584 S.E.2d 256 Union Juvenile Court. Before Judge Michelle Vaughan.

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. Smith, C.J., and Miller, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of K.P. and D.B.P. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. The evidence showed that the mother failed to comply with virtually all of the requirements of the reunification plan. She continued to have contact with D.B.P.'s abusive putative father. She failed to remain drug and alcohol free. She did not maintain stable housing or employment sufficient to support the children. She failed to obtain medical treatment for Hepatitis C. She also failed to attend counseling, maintain contact with her children, and pay child support. At the termination hearing, the mother's probation officer testified that she had failed to comply with nearly every condition of probation. A psychologist testified that the mother suffered from depression, possible panic disorder, alcohol and prescription drug abuse, and personality disorder. The psychologist testified that the mother's lack of coping skills would likely result in continued drug use. The guardian ad litem and CASA both recommended termination. K.P. testified that she did not want to return to her mother. Evidence showed that the children thrived in foster care.

In the Interest of D.D.B.

Date 9/23/2003 Docket Number A03A1441 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1203 Floyd Juvenile Court. Before Judge Timothy Pape.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge. Barnes and Adams, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of D.D.B. appealed the order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed finding that the juvenile court's order was supported by clear and convincing evidence. D.D.B. was taken into DFCS care shortly after birth. The mother had syphilis while pregnant and refused treatment. The mother had been hospitalized for treatment of mental illness, for which she did not consistently take her medication. While the mother completed a great deal of the goals of her case plan, the mother only sporadically complied with the goal of maintaining her mental health. A psychologist testified that she was a paranoid schizophrenic with illogical and tangential thoughts, aggressive outbursts, hallucinations and delusions, as well as manic tendencies. The condition could be partially compensated by medication but the mother had a history of not consistently taking her medication. The psychologist concluded that it would be impossible for her to be a reliable, dependent parent. The child had been in the same foster home since birth and the family desired to adopt.

In the Interest of D.F.

Date 5/6/2003 Docket Number A03A0009 261 Ga. App. 148, 582 S.E.2d 16 Carroll Juvenile Court. Before Judge Daniel P. Camp.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge. Barnes and Adams, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

This case was previously before the Court of Appeals. In June 2000, the Court of Appeals found that the juvenile court's order of termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that continued deprivation would cause or is likely to cause serious harm to the children. The mother appealed the July 2002 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to D.F., I.F., and A.F. following remand, a second petition to terminate parental rights, and additional hearings. The mother argued that the State failed to prove parental misconduct or inability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's determination that parental misconduct or inability had been shown and that termination was in the best interest of the children. At the termination hearing, evidence showed that the mother continued in her failure to comply with the case plan regarding establishing a parent/child relationship, obtaining and maintaining independent suitable housing, maintaining stable employment, and supporting her children. Evidence showed that the mother was unable to control and supervise the children during their visitation. A DFCS placement worker testified that the children had bonded with a "foster to adopt home" where they had been placed for over a year. A clinical psychologist testified that D.F. and I.F. required more involved parenting than normal children. He further testified that the foster parents had exhibited the necessary talent and skill and that the children had shown marked improvement while in their care. In his opinion, the children had not formed an attachment to their mother and removal from the foster care placement would be harmful.

In the Interest of G.B.

Date 10/8/2003 Docket Number A03A1146 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1264

SMITH, Chief Judge. Ruffin, P.J. and Miller, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Lamar Juvenile Court.

The mother appealed the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. She argued that the evidence was insufficient to support termination and that DFCS failed to seek adequate alternatives to termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that the mother failed to complete her case plan. She failed to maintain an adequate home, failed to pay child support, failed to remain drug and alcohol free, missed half her visitations during the six months before the hearing. In addition, evidence was presented that despite the pattern of violent behavior at the grandmother’s home, the mother fully intended to allow G.B. to visit the grandmother. Regarding DFCS’ search for family members, the appellate court found that although the search was conducted approximately two years before the termination hearing, evidence existed showing that the department complied with the dictate of §15-11-103(a)(1) in attempting to find relatives with which to place the child.

In the Interest of G.C.

Date 10/2/2003 Docket Number A03A1128 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1247 Crawford Juvenile Court. Before Judge Thomas Matthews.

MILLER, Judge. Smith, C.J., and Ruffin, P.J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of four boys, ages 6, 4, 3, and 2, appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. She contended that the State did not prove its case by clear and convincing evidence and failed to prove that it is not in the best interest of the children to be placed with relatives in Florida. The evidence showed that between 1999 and 2002, DFCS developed at least five case plans. During the entire time, the parents failed to maintain a safe and clean home. They failed to pay child support although their combined income exceeded their expenses. The father had a criminal history including a drug charge and DUI. The mother had pending charges. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the condition of the home and the parent's failure to feed and bathe the children more than sufficed to support a finding of neglect and to support a finding that such neglect posed a serious health risk to the children. The Court found that the evidence of past failures to complete case plans and her failure to maintain a clean, stable home and the conditions of the home at the time of the termination hearing supported a finding that the deprivation would continue. The Court found that the evidence also supported a finding that termination was in the best interest of the children. The Court noted that children need a secure, stable home. The evidence showed that the mother had inadequate parenting skills and could not properly care for the children and that all four children could not speak, chew food, or use the toilet. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the placement of the children with the foster family with whom they had developed a strong bond and wished to adopt them instead of with relatives who had only recently taken an interest. A psychologist testified that the children would likely suffer detachment disorder if they were once again displaced.

In the Interest of J.A.R.S., J.A.L.S. and J.N.C.S.

Date 7/9/2003 Docket Number A03A0581 262 Ga. App. 237 Murray Juvenile Court. Before Judge Connie Blaylock.

PHIPPS, Judge. Blackburn, P.J., and Ellington, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of triplets appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support termination and that termination is not in the best interests of her children. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The medically fragile children were placed in foster care in February 2001 when they were almost three months old. The mother consented to the order of deprivation. The foster mother testified that when she received the triplets, they were dirty, seemed hungry, had an odor about them, and suffered diaper rash. The evidence showed that the mother had fully completed only one case plan goal - completion of a parenting skills course. At the termination hearing, the DFCS case manager testified that she missed 10 of 36 possible visits. The mother admitted to living in seven different residences since the children entered care. The case manager testified that she failed to inform DFCS of her address changes. She had not voluntarily paid any child support. She failed to maintain employment. The mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADD. The mother had a history of drug abuse. She had two convictions for drug-related charges and had been recently arrested for firearm possession and driving with a suspended license. The case manager testified that DFCS had an adoptive placement for the children.

In the Interest of J.B.

Date 4/10/2003 Docket Number A03A0452 260 Ga. App. 814, 581 S.E.2d 367 Douglas Juvenile Court. Before Judge Peggy Walker.

BARNES, Judge. Andrews, P.J., and Adams, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of J.B., appealed the juvenile court's determination that J.B. is deprived. She contended that the court erred by allowing witnesses for DFCS to remain in the courtroom after she invoked the rule of sequestration and then testify, and by requiring her to present her evidence before DFCS rested its case. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. After the mother invoked the rule of sequestration, DFCS responded that it thought its three witnesses, two caseworkers and a placement center employee, should be allowed to remain, and that it did not intend to call the foster parents. The mother's only response was that if the foster parents stayed they should not later be called as witnesses. The Court of Appeals noted that while O.C.G.A. §24-9-61 provides that either party shall have the right to have the witnesses of the other party examined out of the hearing, the trial court has the discretion to make exceptions to the rule, the violation of which affects the witness's credibility, and only abuse will warrant reversal. The Court found no abuse of discretion as the record revealed that none of the three department witnesses testified about the same events, therefore, no inconsistencies could have caused them to shape their testimony to support or dispute the other witnesses' testimony. Additionally, the Court found that the mother's response regarding the foster parents implied acquiescence to the court's allowing the DFCS witnesses to remain which waived the issue. Regarding mother's contention that the court erred in forcing her to proceed with her case before the department's final witness testified, the Court found no error as the trial court has broad discretion with respect to the order of proof. The mother failed to specify how her evidence would have been different had she been able to present her evidence after the pediatrician had testified, and therefore has shown no harm.

In the Interest of J.B.C.

Date 4/16/2003 Docket Number A03A0564 261 Ga. App. 7, 581 S.E.2d 665 Candler Juvenile Court. Before Judge Tom Rawlings.

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge. Eldridge and Mikell, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTION.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and fathers of minor children J.B.C. and A.H.P. The mother appealed asserting that the juvenile court's finding that there are no suitable family members with whom to place J.B.C. and A.H.P. was premature because her sister has not yet been evaluated as a possible placement for the children. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the case with direction that the court and the Department evaluate the possibility of placing the children with the maternal aunt. In this case, the mother's sister had requested that she be considered as a placement for the children. The juvenile court ordered that her home need not be investigated as a possible placement referring to testimony that on two occasions prior to termination the children's aunt did not follow through on paperwork needed for such an evaluation, and that she did not visit the children during the previous year that they were in foster care. The Court held that while the aunt's conduct prior to the court's termination of parental rights is one factor for the court and DHR to consider in evaluating her suitability as a placement for the children, it does not eliminate the duty of the court and the Department to conduct such an evaluation following the court's termination of the mother's parental rights.

In the Interest of J.J.

Date 1/9/2003 Docket Number A03A0231 259 Ga. App. 159, 575 S.E.2d 921 Henry Juvenile Court. Before Judge Welch, Jr.

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge. Ellington and Phipps, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

S.J. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her four children arguing there was insufficient evidence to support termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed finding sufficient evidence to support termination. S.J. had failed to pay any child support. The Court rejected S.J.'s attempts to justify her failure to pay child support by showing that no court order to pay child support had ever been entered. The Court noted that a parent has a statutory duty to support his/her children with or without a court order. S.J. had failed to comply in any meaningful way with the goals of her case plan. She had failed to resolve all criminal charges against her. She failed to pay fines imposed as a part of her criminal sentences and violated her probation by failing to report. She was subject to extradition to Missouri for food stamp fraud at the time of the termination hearing. She failed to obtain employment. She did not obtain a drug/alcohol assessment until 14 months after the implementation of the case plan and then made no effort to seek counseling. She failed to maintain contact with DFCS and failed to obtain stable and adequate housing. Out of 38 scheduled visits with her children, she attended only half. Those visitations were chaotic and unruly and she discussed inappropriate topics with two children and ignored the other two.

In the Interest of J.P.V.

Date 5/9/2003 Docket Number A03A0232 261 Ga. App. 194, 582 S.E.2d 170 Walton Juvenile Court. Before Judge George J. Hearn, III.

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. Smith, C.J., and Miller, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother appealed the order of the juvenile court that services to reunify J.P.V. with his mother were not appropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the juvenile court's ruling to be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that the trial court's consideration of its prior orders which were unappealed and not objected to by the mother was proper. O.C.G.A. §15-11-58 provides that a presumption exists that reunification services are inappropriate if the child has twice been removed from the home and the parent has been provided reunification services on those prior occasions. The Court found that while the presumption is rebuttable, it was not rebutted in this case. The evidence showed that the mother has a tendency to drive under the influence and to take illicit drugs, which caused her to lose custody of her child on three separate occasions. While the mother had shown that she can refrain from drug and alcohol abuse while a case plan is in effect, she had not demonstrated an ability to refrain from such conduct when she has custody of her child. During the hearing, the mother testified that she may have used drugs on other occasions besides the one time that she tested positive for cocaine. She also admitted to using alcohol. Given the mother's equivocal answers, the Court found the presumption of nonreunification had not been rebutted.

In the Interest of J.W.K.

Date 3/10/2003 Docket Number S02G1194 276 Ga. 314, 578 S.E.2d 396 Gordon Juvenile Court. Before Judge Lane Bearden.

SEARS, Presiding Justice. All the Justices concur. JUDGMENT REVERSED.

In this case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals by holding that the former version of §15-11-58 did not apply in this case because the former §15-11-58 only applied when a court ordered removal of the child from the child's home and the juvenile court did not order the child's removal in this case. The evidence showed that J.W.K. was twelve and had lived with his aunt and uncle for ten years. His mother visited sporadically. In February 2000, J.W.K.'s biological father died. Shortly thereafter, his aunt and uncle filed a deprivation petition for temporary custody of J.W.K. which was granted. A hearing was held four months later, at which the mother sought custody of J.W.K. Evidence showed the mother's lack of involvement in J.W.K.'s life and that the mother's live-in boyfriend is a habitual criminal. J.W.K.'s guardian ad litem advocated strongly that he be permanently placed with his aunt and uncle. A psychologist testified that J.W.K. would suffer emotional harm if removed from his aunt and uncle's home. The juvenile court found J.W.K. deprived by his mother and placed custody with the aunt and uncle for two years and granted such visitation as best serves J.W.K.'s interest. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the juvenile court erred in concluding that §15-11-58 does not apply to private deprivation matters. The Court of Appeals held that under §15-11-58, the juvenile court was required to determine as a matter of fact whether DFCS had undertaken reasonable efforts to reunify, and if not, to instruct DFCS to determine if reunification was appropriate and to propose a reunification plan. The Supreme Court reversed holding that §15-11-58 applies only when a court orders the removal of a child from the child's home. The Supreme Court held that J.W.K. was never removed from his "home" because his aunt and uncle's home is the only "home" he has known for ten years. Further, the Supreme Court held that the former §15-11-58 did not apply to private deprivation actions. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court found the legislature's May 2002 amendment excluding private deprivations from the statute simply clarified the legislative intent of the statute as it existed at the time of the juvenile court’s ruling in this matter.

In the Interest of K. M.

Date 3/27/2003 Docket Number A03A0357 260 Ga. App. 635, 580 S.E.2d 636 Bulloch Juvenile Court. Before Judge Peed.

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge. Eldridge and Mikell, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The parents of K.M. and C.M. appealed an order terminating their parental rights, asserting that the trial court erred in finding present parental misconduct, and that the court improperly determined that the children's deprivation would continue in the future. The Court noted that in support of these two enumerations, the parents' brief simply made conclusory statements and did not make any citations to evidence in the record. The Court further noted that the Court need not search for or consider those enumerations. Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the entire record and found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's order. The evidence showed that the father had sexually abused K.M., that C.M. has also been exposed to sexual activity while in the parent's custody, that the father previously abused alcohol and physically abused the mother, that both parents have intellectual deficiencies and mental health conditions which limit their parenting capabilities, that their employment is unstable, that they failed to comply with the case plan goal of obtaining psychological counseling, and that both children have special needs that the parents are not able to meet.

In the Interest of K.S.K.

Date 12/14/2002 Docket Number A02A0360 253 Ga. App. 78, 557 S.E.2d 494 Haralson County Juvenile Court. Before Judge Mark Murphy

PHIPPS, Judge. Andrews, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of K.S.K. appealed the order terminating her parental rights arguing that DFACS failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the deprivation of K.S.K. was likely to continue, that the continued deprivation would cause serious harm to him, and that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals held there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision. DFACS showed that the mother's inability to parent was due in part to her crack cocaine addiction and near continuous incarceration since his birth. She had visited the child only once, while on parole. Although now released from prison, her job prospects and ability to stay sober were uncertain. K.S.K. had flourished in foster care and the foster parents want to adopt him. The Court held that the juvenile court did not commit legal error by not making wholly discrete determinations as to the likelihood of continuation of the cause of K.S.K.'s deprivation and whether termination of S.K.'s parental rights would be in his best interest. The same factors which show parental inability may also show that termination would be in the children's best interest.

In the Interest of K.W.

Date 6/13/2003 Docket Number A03A0403 261 Ga. App. 654, 583 S.E.2d 509 Bartow Juvenile Court. Before Judge Velma Tilley.

MILLER, Judge. Smith, C.J., and Ruffin, P.J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The parents of K.W. appealed the Bartow Juvenile Court's order finding K.W. was deprived and that South Carolina Dept. of Social Services (SCDSS) maintained legal custody of K.W. The parents contended that the juvenile court erred in 1) giving full faith and credit to prior SC orders; 2) failing to follow a Clayton County Superior Court order that had granted custody of K.W. to his parents. The Court of Appeals discerned no error and affirmed. The dispositive issue on appeal was whether the juvenile court erred in concluding that SCDSS was the legal custodian of the child in light of the prior South Carolina orders regarding the child and his parents. The Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court correctly concluded the SCDSS maintained legal custody of the child. The SCDSS did not abdicate its jurisdiction over the child and was still the legal custodian of the child after he was placed with his paternal aunt and uncle. The parent’s filing of a habeas corpus action did not change the result. Such action was not authorized under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, O.C.G.A. §39-4-4, as the parents could not force Georgia to divest the SCDSS of its jurisdiction. Additionally, even if the habeas petition were authorized, the parents did not include SCDSS as a party to the action, and therefore any order from the proceeding could not have been binding on SCDSS.

In the Interest of K.W.

Date 8/13/2003 Docket Number A03A1888 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1001 Lowndes Juvenile Court. Before Judge Wayne Ellerbee.

ELDRIDGE, Judge. Johnson, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The father of K.W. and D.W. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights contending that the evidence was insufficient to support termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The evidence showed that the father was serving an eight-year sentence with four years to serve for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court noted that incarceration can support a ruling of termination when sufficient aggravating circumstances are present. The Court found an aggravating circumstance in that the father had failed to communicate with the children in any manner since his imprisonment. Further, the record showed that the father has not consistently paid child support and has paid no child support since November 2001, incurring an arrearage of $7900. The father failed to develop and maintain a parental bond with the children in a meaningful and supportive manner in that he had not visited with the children or had any contact with the children in over one year. The Court found that the evidence supported a finding that the deprivation is likely to continue. While the father testified that he expected to be released on parole in August 2003 and that he had taken automotive classes in jail and planned to be employed following his release, the Court noted that these claims were nothing but conjecture. The DFCS caseworker testified that the children had bonded with the foster family who expressed an interest in adopting them.

In the Interest of M.A.M.

Date 6/13/2003 Docket Number A03A0816 261 Ga. App. 664, 583 S.E.2d 517 Fulton Juvenile Court. Before Judge Nina Hickson.

MILLER, Judge. Smith, C.J., and Ruffin, P.J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother of M.A.M. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights contending that the State did not show by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. The evidence showed that in March 2001, M.A.M. was admitted to the hospital with serious signs of neglect, including severe diaper rash and gangrene in one of her toes. DFCS sought custody and the child was found deprived. In the year and a half that M.A.M. remained in State custody, the mother did not comply with her case plan. Evidence showed she failed to provide financial support, failed to obtain stable employment, and failed to maintain a stable home. She never obtained a psychological evaluation. She failed to complete a parenting class. The mother also had a history of violence from an incident where she shot M.A.M.'s father. She also failed to visit M.A.M. on a consistent basis. When she did visit, M.A.M. often retreated from her mother and did not recognize or refer to her as her mother. A caseworker testified as to the significant risk of M.A.M. drifting through foster care limbo and the dangers posed by the lack of stability.

In the Interest of M.D.B.

Date 8/19/2003 Docket Number A03A1035 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1032 Chatham Juvenile Court. Before Judge Juan Ayala.

SMITH, Chief Judge. Ruffin, P.J., and Miller, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The father of M.D.B. appealed the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights contending that the evidence was insufficient to support termination and that the juvenile court erred in refusing to consider placement of the child with either the father's parents or his sister after termination. The Court of Appeals found no merit in the father's contentions and affirmed. DFCS took emergency custody of M.D.B. shortly after birth because the child's mother and father were abusing drugs or alcohol or both. Evidence at the termination hearing showed that father was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder, chronic depression, and a personality disorder with antisocial and dependent features. Additionally, he had problems with impulse control and a history of untreated substance abuse. While the father was referred to two drug and alcohol programs, he did not complete one. The father denied he had a drug problem. A clinical psychologist testified that a child would not be safe in the father's care. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that placement with the paternal grandparents or the paternal aunt was not in the child's best interest. The grandmother suffered asthma and heart problems. The grandfather was a diagnosed schizophrenic. At the time of the hearing, the paternal aunt was unemployed and dependent upon her ex-husband and her parents for support. When she did work, she left her child in the care of M.D.B.'s paternal grandfather. M.D.B. had bonded with the foster parents, who were prospective adoptive parents.

In the Interest of M.D.F.

Date 9/3/2003 Docket Number A03A1639 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1084 Newton Juvenile Court. Judge Horace Johnson, Jr.

ELDRIDGE, Judge. Johnson, P.J., and Mikell, J., concur. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTION.

The mother of M.D.F. brought a petition for the termination of the parental rights of the child's natural father. Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order terminating appellant's parental rights. The juvenile court's order was silent as to the likelihood that the child's deprivation will cause or is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. Appellant appealed based on this omission and further claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals held that an order terminating parental rights must conclusively show compliance with the statutory criteria of §15-11-94 prescribed as a condition precedent for such termination. A mere dry recitation of all of the criteria is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law. The trial judge must ascertain the facts and state not only the end result but the process by which it was reached. The Court found that the trial court's order failed to even give a dry recitation that the child's deprivation will cause or is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. Because the juvenile court's order was deficient as to the last of the required legal conclusions as well as supporting findings of fact, the Court did not address the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court vacated the judgment and directed the juvenile court to enter a new judgment based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court noted that appellant may enter another appeal upon the entry of such judgment.

In the Interest of M.E.S.

Date 9/10/2003 Docket Number A03A1487 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1141 Bartow Juvenile Court. Before Judge Velma Tilley.

MILLER, Judge. Smith, C.J., and Ruffin, P.J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The parents appeal the termination of parental rights as to their four children contending that the State failed to prove their present misconduct and inability and failed to prove that termination was in the best interest of the children. They also assert that they were denied their constitutional right to due process. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed. The evidence showed that the children were removed from the parent's custody in December 2000 when DFCS discovered various injuries to the children and deplorable living conditions. In June 2002, DFCS filed termination proceedings. Evidence at the termination hearing showed that the parents had failed to comply with the case plan. Neither parent was able to maintain stable employment or housing. The parents were evicted twice for nonpayment of rent, and the residences were left in filthy condition. Testimony indicated that the parents were not prepared to parent a special needs child. Evidence showed that the mother missed 21 sessions with her counselor and needed further counseling. While the parents visited the children, the teacher and foster mother testified that the children's behavioral and psychological problems were worse after visitation. The parents also had a child support arrearage of $2,000. Evidence indicated that the younger two children were thriving in their potential adoptive homes and would be harmed if removed. The oldest two children had significant special needs and psychological problems and DFCS planned to seek therapeutic or institutional care. The guardian ad litem recommended termination as to all four children. The parents also contend that they were denied due process because the termination petition failed to mention allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court found that the trial court did not err in admitting and considering the evidence as it was admitted for the purpose of establishing the complex psychological problems and special needs of the two older children and to expose the danger that reunification would pose, and not to accuse the parents of sexual abuse.

In the Interest of M.H.S.

Date 5/29/2003 Docket Number A03A0037 261 Ga. App. 686, 583 S.E.2d 471 Rockdale Juvenile Court. Before Judge Martha K. Glaze.

BARNES, Judge. Andrews, P.J., and Adams, J., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The biological and putative father of M.H.S. appealed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights in M.H.S. and denying his motion for a new trial, asserting there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed. At the time of the termination hearing, appellant was serving a 20-year prison sentence for rape. The Court of Appeals noted that while incarceration alone need not always require termination, incarceration will support such a ruling given sufficient aggravating circumstances. Compelling facts supporting the trial court's finding included the appellant's confession to rape and attendant crimes, the premeditative nature of the crimes, appellant’s threatening note directed at the child's mother left at the crime scene, appellant's attempt to flee, the high publicity surrounding the crimes, appellant's hunger strikes, and the fact the child will be 27 before appellant is eligible for parole. While the father tried to maintain a relationship with M.H.S. by writing letters and appeared to be a loving father, the guardian ad litem recommended that it was in the best interest of the child to have a "clean slate." The psychologist treating M.H.S. testified that he was concerned about the stressful impact of appellant's incarceration on M.H.S. He testified that physical contact with appellant presented a high risk of emotional damage to M.H.S. He further testified that he felt comfortable with M.H.S.'s present home life. Evidence was presented that M.H.S. had a close bond with his step-father and expressed a desire for the stepfather to adopt him.

In the Interest of M.L.

Date 2/11/2003 Docket Number A02A1682 259 Ga. App. 534, 578 S.E.2d 190 Fulton Juvenile Court. Before Judge Sanford J. Jones.

MILLER, Judge. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Johnson, P.J. and Blackburn, P.J., concur.

Mother appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to M.L., F.L., and M.L. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination and termination was in the children's best interest. Evidence showed that the mother had a history of alcohol abuse and failed to comply with a court ordered alcohol treatment program. The mother's teenage son testified that the mother would sometimes become violent when she drank. The older M.L. had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome and had special needs. The mother admitted to drinking when pregnant with the youngest child. She failed to visit the children consistently. She did not offer any financial support after receiving a $21,000 cash settlement. The mother had not worked since the children came into DFCS care. The mother admitted not having developed a bond with the younger two children. A clincial psychologist testified that the mother had mental health deficiencies that render her incapable of providing adequately for the children.

In the Interest of M.M.

Date 9/24/2003 Docket Number A03A1174; A03A1175 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1208 Houston Juvenile Court. Before Judge Deborah Edwards.

PHIPPS, Judge. Blackburn, P.J., and Ellington, J., concur. JUDGMENTS REVERSED.

In separate appeals, the mother of M.M., H.W., and A.P. and the father of A.P. challenged the termination of their parental rights. The Court of Appeals reversed both appeals finding insufficient evidence to support the trial court's orders. The mother contended that the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the causes of deprivation were likely to continue and that the continued deprivation would cause or is likely to cause serious harm to the children. The court noted that the cause of deprivation was attributed to domestic violence and conditions in the home unfit for the children's health and safety. The Court found nothing in the record providing clear and convincing evidence that the causes of deprivation are likely to continue. The mother's first home, while cluttered, was adequate. The mother testified that her second home could accommodate the children and DFCS presented no evidence to the contrary. There was no evidence of domestic violence or drugs. The mother cooperated with DFCS and remained in the same home with her boyfriend. Although there were periods of unemployment, the mother earned money by holding odd jobs. She consistently visited her children and the visits went well. The guardian ad litem opposed termination. The father of A.P. also appealed termination on the basis that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the causes of deprivation were likely to continue. Uncontradicted testimony of the father and mother indicated that the father's home was adequate for A.P. The father cooperated with DFCS, participated in mediation, began paying child support, arranged for day care of A.P., and consistently visited A.P. The guardian ad litem opposed termination. The Court noted that the trial court's decision was based on the possibility that someday the father could be deported and A.P. returned to DFCS care or also deported. The Court noted that termination must be based on clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability and not speculation.

In the Interest of N. Q.

Date 3/10/2003 Docket Number A02A1822 260 Ga. App. 118, 578 S.E.2d 920 Bulloch Juvenile Court. Before Judge Peed.

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. Barnes and Adams, JJ., concur. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to N.Q., J.Q., and I.A. claiming there was insufficient evidence to support termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In March 2000, the juvenile court found the children to be deprived. The mother's house had no electricity or gas, no running water, and little food. The children, ages 4, 7, and 9 were dirty and had never been to school. The mother refused to cooperate with DFCS and failed to follow the case plan w