In the Interest Of: E. G. M., a Child
341 Ga. App. 33
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents had three children (I.L.M., I.T.M., B.M.); the juvenile court terminated their parental rights in July 2015 (order filed Oct. 6, 2015). A fourth child, E.G.M., was born Oct. 4, 2015—premature and born addicted to methadone; DFCS took protective custody and filed a dependency petition.
- Longstanding DFCS involvement dating to 2012 after child wandering incident and home conditions; subsequent removals occurred and family had multiple service referrals (parenting, substance-abuse counseling, Rejuvenate Hope) largely unmet.
- Parents have extensive histories of substance use: mother on long-term methadone with escalating doses and positive benzodiazepine tests; father with past methamphetamine and other drug use and limited engagement in treatment. Both had sporadic counseling attendance and missed/late visitation with children.
- Psychologist and DFCS caseworkers testified that parents’ unresolved substance abuse and inconsistent engagement created ongoing risk, especially for I.T.M. (diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder/autism and intensive therapy needs); foster placement showed children had bonded and made developmental gains.
- Juvenile court terminated parental rights to the three older children (finding dependency, likely continuing cause, likely harm, and best interests supported). Later adjudicated newborn E.G.M. dependent (finding chronic unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues), after continuing the adjudication hearing from Oct. 2015 to Jan. 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DFCS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination of rights to I.L.M., I.T.M., B.M.: whether clear and convincing evidence supported dependency, likely continuation of causes, likely harm, and best interests | Parents argued they substantially completed case plan items, improved housing/employment, and termination was not in children’s best interests | DFCS pointed to unresolved chronic substance abuse, poor engagement with services, missed visits, and expert testimony showing risk to children and bond with foster parents | Court affirmed termination: clear and convincing evidence supported dependency, likelihood causes would continue, harm would result, and termination was in children’s best interests |
| Due process — DFCS failed to file case plan timely with juvenile court | Parents claimed prejudice from lack of filed case plan (e.g., confusion about Rejuvenate Hope requirement) | DFCS and court noted parents were aware of plan requirements, had referrals, participated in review panels, and parents failed to show actual harm from filing delay | Court held despite DFCS’s filing error, parents failed to prove prejudice; due process claim fails |
| Adjudication of E.G.M.: whether juvenile court had clear and convincing evidence of dependency (chronic/unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues) | Parents argued DFCS failed to prove chronic unresolved substance abuse or mental health issues at time of adjudication | DFCS relied on recent newborn methadone addiction, parents’ ongoing methadone use (increased dose), admissions of limited treatment, prior termination of siblings for substance abuse, and expert/guardian testimony | Court affirmed dependency as to chronic unresolved substance abuse (clear and convincing); court found mental-health finding unsupported but harmless because substance-abuse finding alone sufficed |
| Continuance of E.G.M. adjudication from Oct. 2015 to Jan. 2016: whether continuance violated statutory prompt-hearing rules and prejudiced parents | Parents argued delay violated OCGA timing and hindered bonding/visitation; moved to dismiss | DFCS and court cited overcrowded docket, contested hearing needing more time, child hospitalized and receiving care, parents had hospital visitation, and no showing continuance harmed child | Court found no abuse of discretion in granting continuances for good cause and denied dismissal/motions |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J. A. B., 336 Ga. App. 367 (court’s standard of review for termination and dependency appeals)
- In the Interest of S. C. S., 336 Ga. App. 236 (deference to juvenile court factfinding; children’s welfare primary)
- In the Interest of B. S., 265 Ga. App. 795 (past termination of other children and mother’s failure to seek treatment supports dependency finding)
- In the Interest of D. D. B., 282 Ga. App. 416 (past unfitness may be considered but not alone dispositive)
- In the Interest of D. T., 284 Ga. App. 336 (continuance and reversal standards; prejudice requirement for due process errors)
- Blue v. Hemmans, 327 Ga. App. 353 (appellate review of material factual errors and harmlessness analysis)