321 Ga. App. 837
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- DFCS found R. L. deprived due to lack of stable housing, income, and exposure to domestic violence in Sept. 2011; electricity at the grandmother’s home was off.
- R. L. and mother moved to a family friend’s home; mother and father later had a domestic altercation that led to DFCS seeking shelter and taking custody of R. L. temporarily.
- At the Nov. 22, 2011 hearing, CASA inspected the home; DFCS had not yet completed its housing evaluation despite orders; the juvenile court found deprivation based on housing, income, domestic violence, and emotional harm.
- CASA found the new housing suitable; DFCS acknowledged the housing had changed; no other evidence showed the mother’s incapacity to care for R. L.; trial court placed R. L. with the mother under a protective order.
- The sole issue on appeal is whether the deprivation finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence; the court reverses, finding no present deprivation; the mother’s parenting was not shown to be unfit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child has standing to appeal deprivation | R. L. argues standing to appeal the deprivation finding | DFCS contends no issue with standing (record shows none) | Standing exists; no conflict with guardian ad litem waives standing |
| Whether the deprivation finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence | R. L. asserts deprivation was not proven | DFCS argues present deprivation based on housing and related factors | Not supported; no evidence of parent misconduct or harm to the child; deprivation reversed |
| Whether DFCS’s failure to timely evaluate new housing supports deprivation | R. L. contends timely evaluation would show no deprivation | DFCS argues pending evaluation indicates deprivation | Failure to timely evaluate does not establish present deprivation |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of W. L. H., 292 Ga. 521 (Ga. 2013) (affirmed deprivation standard and standing considerations)
- In the Interest of W. L. H., 314 Ga. App. 185 (Ga. App. 2012) (discussion of deprivation evidence sufficiency)
- In the Interest of R. M., 276 Ga. App. 707 (Ga. App. 2005) (premise that evidence must show present deprivation)
- In the Interest of S. D., 316 Ga. App. 86 (Ga. App. 2012) (state must show present deprivation, not past or potential)