334 Ga. App. 732
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Father was incarcerated multiple times during child's early years; child (N.T.) entered DFCS custody in May 2011 and remained in foster care; mother surrendered her parental rights in 2013.
- DFCS's case plan required legitimation, resolving legal issues, stable housing and employment, and psychological/bonding assessments; father completed assessments, legitimated the child, maintained phone and supervised visits, and sent letters/gifts.
- Father was released from incarceration in Oct. 2012, sought housing/employment (Chattanooga, Texas, then New Jersey for medical care), completed job and parenting programs, and had supervised visits beginning in mid-2013.
- Clinical psychologist found a stronger parental bond between the child and foster parents than with father; father–child relationship described as improving but not a full parental bond.
- Juvenile court terminated father’s parental rights in Jan. 2014, finding deprivation caused by father’s unstable housing/employment likely to continue and continued deprivation likely to cause serious harm; appellate court granted discretionary appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of proper parental care caused deprivation | Father's long incarcerations and failure to parent/support caused deprivation | Father argued he completed plan steps, maintained contact, and provided gifts/support | Court: Yes — clear and convincing evidence that lack of parental care caused deprivation |
| Whether cause of deprivation is likely to continue | Father’s instability, criminal associations, and transient housing show likelihood of continuation | Father pointed to post-release progress: employment, housing with brother, visitation, completed assessments, and medical reasons for temporary moves | Court: No — insufficient clear and convincing evidence that deprivation is likely to continue |
| Whether continued deprivation will cause serious physical/mental/emotional/moral harm | Continued limbo and potential interference with foster adoption would harm child emotionally | Father argued no evidence his presence was harmful; contact had been positive and bond was improving | Court: No — insufficient evidence that continued deprivation would cause serious harm |
| Whether termination is appropriate now | DFCS: permanency via adoption serves child’s best interest because foster parents are bonded and want to adopt | Father: termination premature given improvements and need for more time to complete plan and bond | Court: Reversed termination; remanded for reunification planning (declined to decide best interest pending future events) |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of A. B., 311 Ga. App. 629 (2011) (standard for reviewing juvenile court dispositional findings)
- In the Interest of F. A. G. R., 328 Ga. App. 88 (2014) (applicability of former Juvenile Code to proceedings commenced before Jan 1, 2014)
- In the Interest of A. G., 293 Ga. App. 383 (2008) (failure to develop parental bond and stabilize employment supports deprivation finding)
- In the Interest of I. S., 278 Ga. 859 (2005) (effect of not appealing deprivation finding)
- In the Interest of K. D. E., 288 Ga. App. 520 (2007) (past unfitness alone insufficient; present unfitness required)
- In the Interest of D. J., 320 Ga. App. 247 (2013) (parental support history considered in likelihood-of-continuation analysis)
- In the Interest of C. S., 319 Ga. App. 138 (2012) (termination is remedy of last resort; clear-and-convincing requirement for likely-continuation)
- In the Interest of R. C. M., 284 Ga. App. 791 (2007) (termination premature where petition filed while parent incarcerated and unable to complete plan)
- In the Interest of K. J., 226 Ga. App. 303 (1997) (positive parent–child relationship during incarceration weighs against termination)
- In the Interest of J. V. J., 329 Ga. App. 421 (2014) (court cannot terminate parental rights merely because child may be better off with foster family)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest requiring heightened proof for termination)
