In the Interest of D. M. Et Al., Children
339 Ga. App. 46
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two boys, D.M. (b. 2009) and B.A.M. (b. 2011), were repeatedly removed from their mother beginning 2011 for domestic violence, unsanitary conditions, lack of supervision (children found in street), and instability; juvenile court found them deprived/dependent multiple times and placed them in DFCS custody.
- The mother was subject to multiple case plans (parenting classes, housing/income, childcare, domestic-violence assessment, psychological evaluation); she made some progress while supervised but regressed after children were returned.
- Reports while children were in mother’s care included serious injuries (bruises, cut, burn), inadequate supervision, refusal to sign a safety plan, and leaving children with caregivers having drug/criminal history.
- A psychologist evaluated the mother in 2011, 2012, and 2014, concluding she suffered from a personality disorder that impaired functioning, resisted change, and made lasting reunification unlikely; recommended against return absent another parent figure.
- DFCS sought termination in Feb 2015; juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights in Oct 2015. Mother appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds and best-interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | State/DFCS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were dependent due to lack of proper parental care/control | Insufficient evidence of lack of proper care/control | Repeated removals, injuries, poor supervision, failure to follow plans show lack of care | Court: sufficient evidence of dependency due to lack of proper care/control |
| Whether the dependency was likely to continue | Mother argued no clear proof dependency would continue | Psychologist and history of relapse after reunification showed likely continuation | Court: sufficient evidence that dependency likely to continue |
| Whether continued dependency would likely cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm | Mother argued insufficient proof of likely serious harm to these specific children | DFCS relied on history, injuries, behavioral impacts, and expert opinion to argue likely harm | Court: juvenile court did not make the required specific factual findings for these children; vacated and remanded for explicit findings |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Mother argued insufficient findings/evidence to support best-interest conclusion | DFCS pointed to improved stability in foster home and psychologist’s recommendation | Court: could not reach best-interest question because prerequisite findings were missing; remanded for specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J. A. B., 336 Ga. App. 367 (clear-and-convincing standard and caution in termination proceedings)
- In the Interest of S. O. C., 332 Ga. App. 738 (parental-rights termination as drastic remedy requiring compelling facts)
- In the Interest of C. J. V., 323 Ga. App. 283 (need for present unfitness evidence and careful findings)
- In the Interest of A. C., 285 Ga. 829 (termination permanently severs constitutional familial rights)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (constitutional significance of parental rights and consequences of termination)