In THE INTEREST OF B. H.-W., a Child
332 Ga. App. 269
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Father (D.W.) filed to legitimate his ten-month-old son B.H.-W. and moved for placement; the Department had a pending petition for permanent guardianship with the child in foster care.
- Juvenile Court granted legitimation, placed the child with the father, and dismissed the Department’s guardianship petition; mother (B.H.-A.) appealed.
- Mother argued the juvenile court’s orders lacked jurisdictional findings, improperly excluded testimony, erred in finding no abandonment of the father’s opportunity interest, failed to determine parental fitness, and should have applied the child’s best-interest standard when dismissing guardianship.
- Trial evidence: father and paternal grandmother testified to post-birth involvement (hospital visits, gifts, stays, feeding/diapering) and frequent contact/visits while child was in foster care; mother presented no conflicting evidence.
- Juvenile court expressly found the father had not abandoned his opportunity interest and stated it was granting legitimation under the parental fitness test.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient jurisdictional recitals on the face of the custody order, no reversible evidentiary error, competent evidence of non-abandonment, and correct legal standards applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional facts omitted | Mother: orders omitted necessary jurisdictional findings and findings of fact/conclusions of law | Father/State: custody order incorporated legitimation order, recited service, presence, subject matter, and gave jurisdictional facts; mother waived personal jurisdiction challenge | Court: custody order showed necessary jurisdictional facts; mother waived challenges to personal jurisdiction; claims about omitted findings of fact/conclusions were abandoned for lack of authority |
| Exclusion of testimony | Mother: trial court improperly excluded cross-exam on father’s knowledge of birth and pursuit of opportunity interest | Father: mother had later opportunity to elicit same testimony; relevance objection sustained initially but issues revisited later | Court: no reversible error — mother later questioned father on pursuit of opportunity interest; any error cured |
| Abandonment of opportunity interest | Mother: father abandoned his opportunity interest and so could not legitimate without best-interest analysis | Father: evidence showed ongoing efforts (hospital presence, visits, contact with Department) — no abandonment | Court: competent evidence supported finding of no abandonment; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Parental fitness determination & best-interest standard | Mother: court failed to determine fitness and should have applied best-interest standard when dismissing guardianship | Father: court expressly used parental fitness test and, where father has not abandoned opportunity interest, fitness (not best interest) governs over third parties | Court: record shows court applied parental fitness test; fitness is low threshold; once no abandonment, best-interest standard not required; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Girl Eason, 257 Ga. 292 (1987) (a fit biological father who pursues custody prevails over strangers seeking adoption)
- In the Interest of S. K. L., 199 Ga. App. 731 (1991) (juvenile court orders must show jurisdictional facts on their face)
- Morris v. Morris, 309 Ga. App. 387 (2011) (legitimation requires initial abandonment inquiry; then fitness or best-interest standard depending on relationship)
- Neill v. Brannon, 320 Ga. App. 820 (2013) (standard of review: legitimation rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings for clear error)
- Reeves v. State, 294 Ga. 673 (2014) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)