333 Ga. App. 1
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Child L.R.M. born June 2012; lived with mother and father at paternal grandmother's home; father later incarcerated.
- DFCS removed the children in Aug 2013 and placed them with a maternal relative; juvenile court later adjudicated L.R.M. deprived due to mother's substance abuse and parents' inability to provide supervision.
- Grandmother had provided care and financial support, initially had supervised then unsupervised visits, but DFCS later curtailed visits after grandmother allegedly allowed mother unsupervised access and mother’s arrests.
- Grandmother filed a motion to intervene under OCGA § 19-7-3 seeking custody and grandparent visitation; juvenile court held a hearing and considered evidence from DFCS, mother, and grandmother.
- Juvenile court denied intervention and denied custody/visitation, reasoning that OCGA § 19-7-3 does not confer an unconditional right to intervene, permissive intervention would prejudice the deprivation adjudication, and placement with grandmother would impede the DFCS reunification plan.
- Court relied on evidence that mother had not complied with case plan, continued substance use, may still live with grandmother, and DFCS had concerns about exposing the child to negative influences; judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to hear denial of motion to intervene in juvenile deprivation case | Grandmother sought direct appeal of denial of custody/visitation | Juvenile court order nonfinal; appeal should be interlocutory | Denial of custody/visitation is directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11); jurisdiction exists |
| Whether grandmother had an absolute right to intervene under OCGA § 19-7-3(b) | Grandmother argued statute gives unconditional right to intervene for custody/visitation | Juvenile court treated intervention as discretionary and focused on case merits and potential prejudice | Even if court erred on absolute-right reasoning, no reversible error because grandmother was allowed to present evidence and merits were decided |
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard for grandparent visitation given incarcerated father (OCGA § 19-7-3(d)) | Grandmother argued court ignored factors (residence, financial support, pattern of care) and failed to defer to parent’s wishes | DFCS and juvenile court emphasized best interests, maternal parent’s rehabilitation failure, and risk of exposure to negative influences | Court applied section (d) standard (best interest with deference to custodial parent but not conclusive) and denied visitation as within discretion |
| Whether denial of custody/visitation was an abuse of discretion on the merits | Grandmother claimed history of care and support showed harm if visitation denied | DFCS pointed to mother’s ongoing drug problems, grandmother allowing mother unsupervised access, and child’s stable current placement with siblings | Sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s discretionary denial; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of S.K., 248 Ga. App. 122 (discussing standard of review in juvenile appeal)
- Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLC, 306 Ga. App. 160 (jurisdictional duty to raise question of appealability)
- Davis v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 285 Ga. 22 (distinguishing final vs. interlocutory rulings on intervention)
- Hargett v. Dickey, 304 Ga. App. 387 (grandparent visitation/custody orders are directly appealable)
- O'Neal v. Oxendine, 237 Ga. App. 171 (no reversible error when movant participated fully despite denial to intervene)
- Srader v. Midkiff, 303 Ga. App. 514 (discretionary nature of grandparent visitation rulings)
- Vines v. Vines, 292 Ga. 550 (any evidence supporting trial court precludes finding abuse of discretion)