In Re Cas
708 S.E.2d 655
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- C.A.S. was born in September 2005 and removed from mother in September 2007 due to meth use and unstable housing/employment.
- Father never legitimized C.A.S.; C.A.S. adjudicated deprived; no appeal by parents.
- Maternal grandmother initially had custody but violated safety plans, leading to DFCS taking custody in June 2009; foster care with two cousins ongoing and foster parents pursuing adoption.
- August 2009 juvenile court case plan required stable housing, income, child support, visitation, parenting class, drug/alcohol treatment, negative drug screens, psychological evaluation and treatment; progress proofs required to case manager.
- Mother began drug treatment February 2010 with negative screens; completed parenting class; moved to her own apartment; testified she did not inform case manager of progress due to hostility; quit employment October 2009 to enter treatment.
- January 2010 mother arrested for probation violation; remained unemployed at termination hearing; paid only $250 in child support during C.A.S. out-of-home period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to pay child support supports termination. | Mother argues not dispositive due to employment hardship. | DFCS contends failure to pay for over a year shows lack of ability to care for child. | Yes; failure to pay supports termination under OCGA 15-11-94(b)(2). |
| Whether termination was premature absent one-year reunification period. | Mother claims less than one year since supplemental plan order. | DFCS argues goals had been in place since 2008; factors support termination despite timing. | No; other factors support deprivation and lack of care, justifying termination. |
| Whether C.A.S. is presently deprived. | Mother had recent progress and engagement with treatment. | DFCS points to late treatment start, unemployment, and limited support as evidence of current deprivation. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of present deprivation. |
| Whether deprivation is likely to continue. | Mother asserts progress undermines likelihood of continued deprivation. | Past conduct and ongoing instability indicate deprivation would continue. | Yes; likelihood of continued deprivation supported by past and current conduct. |
| Whether termination is in C.A.S.'s best interests. | Mother argues potential for rehabilitation and attachment considerations. | DFCS notes mother's instability, limited support, and adoptive intent of foster parents. | Yes; termination in child's best interests given foster care plans and advisory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J.R.N., 291 Ga.App. 521 (2008) (clear and convincing standard for parental deprivation)
- In the Interest of T.J.J., 258 Ga.App. 312 (2002) (rational trier of fact could terminate under CVE)
- In the Interest of R.S., 270 Ga.App. 810 (2004) (unavailability of reunification factors as grounds for termination)
- In the Interest of D.B., 306 Ga.App. 129 (2010) (credible consideration of past conduct and present situation)
- In the Interest of M.C., 287 Ga.App. 766 (2007) (past conduct informs likelihood of future deprivation)
- In the Interest of K.M., 240 Ga.App. 677 (1999) (present fitness and weight of recent improvements)
- In the Interest of A.T.H., 248 Ga.App. 570 (2001) (trial court determines weight of improvements)
- In the Interest of B.W., 287 Ga.App. 54 (2007) (broad discretion in best interests determination)
- In the Interest of C.M., 282 Ga.App. 502 (2006) (no manifest abuse in termination decision)