In the Interest of C. A. S.
308 Ga. App. 757
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother of five-year-old C. A. S. appeals termination of parental rights; record supports termination by clear and convincing evidence.
- C. A. S. was born September 2005 and removed from mother in September 2007 for meth use, unstable housing, and lack of employment; father never legitimized him.
- Initial placement with maternal grandmother; removal from grandmother in 2009 for safety plan violations and drug activity at grandmother’s home.
- DFCS gained custody in June 2009; child currently in foster care with two cousins; foster parents plan to adopt all three siblings.
- Aug. 2009 case plan required housing, income, child support, visitation, parenting class, drug/alcohol and psychological evaluations with treatment; mother submitted minimal progress evidence.
- February 2010 mother began treatment; negative drug screens; completed some classes but failed to timely complete treatment and did not inform case manager; incarcerated January 2010 for probation violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to pay child support supports termination | Mother willfully failed to pay support for at least a year. | Failure to pay support constitutes grounds for termination under OCGA 15-11-94 (b) (2). | Yes; termination authorized for willful failure to pay. |
| Whether termination was premature under the one-year reunification period | OCGA 15-11-94 (b) (4) (C) (iii) requires a year; petition filed within that window. | Other factors justify termination even if less than one year since plan; long-term noncompliance supports severance. | No; other factors support termination notwithstanding the shorter period. |
| Whether there was present deprivation presently | Recent progress suggests possible present fitness. | Past conduct and delay in treatment indicate ongoing deprivation. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence shows current deprivation. |
| Whether deprivation is likely to continue | Mother’s past instability and failure to complete plan predict continued deprivation. | Improvements could indicate future rehabilitation. | Yes; likely to continue given the record of instability and noncompliance. |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | Given unreliability and lack of support, termination serves child’s stability and adoptive plans. | Promising changes could render termination not in best interest. | Yes; termination is in C. A. S.’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J. R. N., 291 Ga. App. 521 (2008) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination findings)
- In the Interest of T. J. J., 258 Ga. App. 312 (2002) (view evidence in light most favorable to ruling; rational trier of fact)
- In the Interest of R. S., 270 Ga. App. 810 (2004) (court may rely on factors beyond one-year period)
- In the Interest of M. C., 287 Ga. App. 766 (2007) (lack of compliance supports deprivation conclusion)
- In the Interest of A. T. H., 248 Ga. App. 570 (2001) (weight of recent improvements is for trier of fact)
- In the Interest of B. W., 287 Ga. App. 54 (2007) (best-interests analysis alongside misconduct evidence)
- In the Interest of C. M., 282 Ga. App. 502 (2006) (trial court’s discretion in best-interests determination)
- In the Interest of D. B., 306 Ga. App. 129 (2010) (comprehensive consideration of evidence for RTF termination)