In Re Dta
312 Ga. App. 26
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother and father sought termination of parental rights of D.T.A. and K.F.A.; juvenile court granted termination of the mother’s rights; mother appealed on sufficiency of evidence.
- Deprivation petition filed by paternal grandparents (Azuas) alleging mother’s incarceration, unemployment, unstable housing, and inability to provide a suitable home caused deprivation; father consented to temporary custody.
- Deprivation order (April 2009) awarded temporary custody to the Azuas and set reunification conditions (housing, employment, parenting class, drug/alcohol assessment, visitation, child support).
- Mother pled guilty to terroristic threats and battery; later incarcerated again for other offenses; by 2010 she remained incarcerated and had limited contact with the children.
- Termination hearing (Nov. 1, 2010) involved evidence on whether deprivation was due to lack of parental care and control, whether such deprivation would continue, and whether termination was in the children’s best interests; the court took judicial notice of earlier proceedings.
- Appellate court vacated and remanded for explicit findings on the fourth element (likelihood of serious harm from continued deprivation) and for a new judgment, after finding three elements satisfied but the fourth inadequately articulated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability under OCGA § 15-11-94(b)(4)(A). | Azua argues deprivation due to mother’s incarceration, lack of parental care, and failure to reunify. | Mother contends there was not sufficient evidence to prove ongoing deprivation and probable harm. | Three of four elements met; fourth element lacking explicit findings; remand ordered. |
| Whether the likelihood of serious harm from continued deprivation was adequately shown. | Azua asserts continued deprivation will cause serious harm to the children. | Mother argues no explicit showing of likely harm beyond deprivation. | The court failed to provide explicit factual findings; vacated for proper articulation. |
| Whether the court properly stated and supported findings of fact and conclusions of law on serious-harm prong. | Findings relied on conclusions about unfitness without specific facts. | Court’s conclusions mirrored statutory requirements but lacked factual basis for harm. | Need explicit, fact-based findings; remand with direction to enter appropriate findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J.R.N., 291 Ga.App. 521, 662 S.E.2d 300 (2008) (Ga. App. 2008) (supports consideration of deprivation causation and continued deprivation)
- In the Interest of A.C., 285 Ga. 829, 686 S.E.2d 635 (2009) (Ga. 2009) (guides weighing reunification efforts and parent explanations)
- In the Interest of D.W., 293 Ga.App. 468, 667 S.E.2d 631 (2008) (Ga. App. 2008) (requires explicit findings on continued deprivation and harm)
- In the Interest of J.E., 309 Ga.App. 51, 711 S.E.2d 5 (2011) (Ga. App. 2011) (deprivation finding alone does not automatically support harm finding)
- In the Interest of A.T., 271 Ga.App. 470, 610 S.E.2d 121 (2005) (Ga. App. 2005) (evidence of harm requires case-specific factual basis)
- In the Interest of R.C.M., 284 Ga.App. 791, 645 S.E.2d 363 (2007) (Ga. App. 2007) (incarceration can establish deprivation under statute)
- In the Interest of M.C.L., 251 Ga.App. 132, 553 S.E.2d 647 (2001) (Ga. App. 2001) (aggravating circumstances may include repeated incarcerations and failure to reunify)
- In the Interest of L.F., 203 Ga.App. 522, 417 S.E.2d 344 (1992) (Ga. App. 1992) (demonstrable negative effect of incarceration may be shown circumstantially)
- In the Interest of J.M., 251 Ga.App. 380, 554 S.E.2d 533 (2001) (Ga. App. 2001) (requires detailed factual basis for harm finding)
- In the Interest of S.W.J.P.D., 275 Ga.App. 272, 620 S.E.2d 497 (2005) (Ga. App. 2005) (remand for proper findings when essential elements not articulated)