320 Ga. App. 247
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- D. J. was born Sept. 11, 2009; shelter care authorized Sept. 29, 2009.
- DFCS filed deprivation petitions Oct. 1 and Oct. 6, 2009, citing homelessness, lack of housing, and prior DFCS involvement with the mother.
- DFCS established a case plan prioritizing reunification and relative placement, including psychological evaluation, following recommendations, housing, and parenting classes; April 2011 added AADD assessment.
- Judicial review through 2010–2011 showed “favorable case plan progression,” housing improvements, and some progress on goals, though AADD referrals and home visits were inconsistent.
- June 2011 DFCS petitioned to terminate parental rights; by 2011–2012 the court found some progress but ultimately terminated, then the court reversed on appeal, remanding for reunification planning.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination, holding the evidence did not meet the requirements of OCGA 15-11-94(b)(4)(A) and that the record did not support the conclusion the deprivation would continue; remanded for a reunification plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports termination under OCGA 15-11-94(b)(4)(A). | D. J. argues deprivation will continue; strong reliance on cognitive issues. | The State argues mother’s progress is insufficient; repeated case plan failures. | Not supported; evidence inadequate for continued deprivation. |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother failed to comply with the case plan for over a year. | Mother allegedly failed to meet goals for a year prior to petition. | Progress shown; plan updates and housing improvements. | Record does not show one-year noncompliance as required. |
| Whether expert evidence supported findings of cognitive impairment affecting care for medical needs. | Evidence of impairment supports termination. | Lack of competent expert testimony; findings based on lay testimony. | Reversal to the extent of requiring further consideration; expert testimony needed. |
| Whether the court should reverse and remand for reunification given bond and progress. | Termination warranted due to noncompliance. | Remedy of last resort; progress undermines termination. | Remand for reunification planning. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of D. L. T. C., 299 Ga. App. 765 (Ga. App. 2009) (clear and convincing standard in termination proceedings; reversal when not met)
- In the Interest of M. A., 280 Ga. App. 854 (Ga. App. 2006) (highly guarded right to raise children; strict standard for termination)
- In the Interest of A. R. A. S., 278 Ga. App. 608 (Ga. App. 2006) (heightened clear and convincing standard applied)
- In the Interest of R. N. H., 286 Ga. App. 737 (Ga. App. 2007) (two-prong test; deprivation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- In the Interest of C. S., 319 Ga. App. 138 (Ga. App. 2012) (record must support deprivation findings; remand when evidence lacking)
- In the Interest of S. L. E., 280 Ga.App. 145 (Ga. App. 2006) (requires robust evidence beyond isolated conduct)
- In the Interest of C. A., 316 Ga. App. 185 (Ga. App. 2012) (medical/mability considerations require expert evidence)