In the Interest of C. S.
319 Ga. App. 138
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Adams, J. reviews termination of paternal rights for Ca.S. and Ch.S. (born 2007 and 2008) following discretionary review.
- The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights along with the mother’s and the other father’s; only the father’s appeal is before us.
- DFCS and multiple caseworkers testified over months due to the mother’s relocations and the children’s welfare concerns.
- Early investigations in 2009 noted unsupervised children and a grandmother who had not completed drug testing, with concerns about supervision and possible neglect.
- DFCS shifted from reunification toward nonreunification/adoption in 2010 after discovering the mother’s involvement with a convicted child molester; the father reportedly faced transportation issues and had intermittent drug issues.
- The appellate court reverses the termination as to the father, remanding for possible reunification planning, and notes potential reconsideration of relative placements (Patricia and Phillip Smith).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deprivation was likely to continue for the father | Bearden cites ongoing bond, progress on plan, and recent compliance. | Bearden argues deprivation was not clearly and convincingly likely to continue given progress and bond. | No clear and convincing showing deprivation likely to continue; reverse and remand for reunification planning. |
| Whether the father maintained a meaningful parental bond | Appellee contends bond existed but was minimal or nonexistent. | Appellant maintained regular visitation and had generally positive interactions. | Court erred in finding no meaningful bond; bond evidence favored father. |
| Relative placement considerations (Smiths) | Smiths were potential suitable placements but were denied. | Relatives not deemed suitable at time of termination. | Appellate reversal of termination warrants reconsideration of relative-placement suitability. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of M. A., 280 Ga. App. 854, 856 (635 SE2d 223) (2006) (Ga. App. 2006) (parental unfitness requires present evidence, not just past conduct)
- In the Interest of D. L. T. C., 299 Ga. App. 765, 769 (1) (684 SE2d 29) (2009) (Ga. App. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence of present unfitness and likelihood of continuation required)
- In the Interest of S. M. W., 287 Ga. App. 288, 290 (1) (651 SE2d 211) (2007) (Ga. App. 2007) (reunification and best interests considerations in termination cases)
- In the Interest of J. E., 309 Ga. App. 51, 56-57 (1) (c) (711 SE2d 5) (2011) (Ga. App. 2011) (deprivation likely to continue when stable housing and continuous support absent)