In the Interest of S. B. Et Al., Children, 335 Ga. App. 1

Background

Two children (born 2009, 2010) were subject to DFACS involvement for neglect and unsanitary housing; parents agreed to protective orders but children were removed in July 2012 after new complaints (medical neglect, severe sunburns, unsanitary/unstable housing).
Parents consistently attended nearly all visits (often walking five miles), completed parenting classes, and maintained a bond with the children; father worked out-of-state intermittently and had been recently rehired by his long-term employer before the termination hearing.
Psychological testing disclosed speech delays and symptoms consistent with reactive attachment disorder, but no formal diagnosis requiring therapy; speech therapy was recommended/started for one child.
Foster parents provided stable care and expressed willingness to adopt; foster father died after the termination order but before the motion-for-new-trial hearing.
Juvenile court terminated parental rights in March 2014 (petition filed Oct. 2013) finding deprivation likely to continue and termination in children's best interests; parents’ motions for new trial and to set aside were denied.
Parents appealed arguing lack of clear-and-convincing proof of continuing deprivation and harm, termination not in children’s best interests, and ineffective assistance because counsel failed to file a legitimation petition for the father.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DFACS)	Defendant's Argument (Parents)	Held
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that deprivation was likely to continue	Deprivation persisted (unsanitary/unstable housing, inability to provide) and parents had not shown lasting remediation	Parents showed improvement, strong visitation, father’s re-employment, and corrective steps to remediate housing problems	Reversed — evidence insufficient to show likely continued deprivation
Whether continued deprivation was likely to cause serious physical, mental, or emotional harm	Continued instability and prior neglect put children at risk of further harm, including attachment issues	No evidence that continuing legal parent-child relationship would be harmful; symptoms did not require therapy; bond with parents was positive	Reversed — insufficient proof that continued deprivation would seriously harm children
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Foster home stability and willingness to adopt made termination appropriate for children’s need for secure, stable home	Parents’ bond, improvements, father’s rehire, and foster father’s subsequent death made termination premature and potentially harmful	Reversed — termination not shown clearly to be in best interests at this time
Whether father received effective assistance of counsel (failure to file legitimation petition)	Court asserted it would have terminated father on other grounds despite non-legitimation	Counsel admitted oversight; father lost statutory standing without legitimation; prejudice likely because proceedings would have been different if father could contest termination	Reversed in part and remanded — counsel ineffective; father given 30 days to file legitimation or acknowledgment under old Code

Key Cases Cited

In the Interest of T. B. R., 304 Ga. App. 773 (2010) (non-legitimated father lacks standing and termination was mandatory under old Code)
In the Interest of C. S., 319 Ga. App. 138 (2012) (standard of review and caution in parental-rights termination cases)
In the Interest of D. F., 251 Ga. App. 859 (2001) (parental inability does not automatically show parent-child relationship is detrimental)
In the Interest of A. M., 324 Ga. App. 512 (2013) (juvenile court may modify or set aside orders based on changed circumstances or newly discovered evidence)
In the Interest of D. W., 264 Ga. App. 833 (2003) (mandatory termination for non-legitimated father under prior statute)
In Interest of A. H. P., 232 Ga. App. 330 (1998) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel in juvenile termination proceedings)