In the Interest of T. Z. L., 325 Ga. App. 84

T. Z. L., then four years old, came into DFCS custody in April 2012 after severe injuries were sustained; the child lived with his mother and her boyfriend while his father was incarcerated.
DFCS filed a deprivation petition April 20, 2012 alleging abuse by the mother's boyfriend, failure to obtain medical care, and the parents’ incarceration; the juvenile court adjudicated deprivation.
The court found the mother’s conduct and the father’s incarceration, substance abuse history, and extensive criminal record as causes of deprivation and placed the child in DFCS custody.
The court’s May 8 deprivation order ordered no parental visits and incorporated a nonreunification/TPR/adoption plan.
DFCS later pursued termination of the father’s parental rights under OCGA § 15-11-94, while the mother surrendered her rights around June 2012; the father was served during incarceration.
A citizen panel recommended adoption over reunification, and the termination hearing occurred in November–December 2012, with the father unable to attend due to incarceration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deprivation finding was likely to continue or not be remedied	Phipps argues deprivation was not shown to be likely to continue given his incarceration and limited opportunity to complete a reunification plan	DFCS contends past incarcerations and drug history support likelihood of ongoing deprivation	No clear and convincing evidence that deprivation would likely continue
Whether continued deprivation would harm the child	Phipps contends insufficient evidence to prove ongoing harm from deprivation	DFCS argues continued deprivation risks harm given child’s foster placement and need for permanency	Premature to determine harm without proving deprivation would continue
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests	Phipps asserts best-interest finding rests on insufficient evidence of likely future stability	DFCS maintains adoption and permanency serve child’s best interests	Best-interests issue remains unresolved because deprivation was not sufficiently proven to continue

In the Interest of J. D. F., 277 Ga. App. 424 (2006) (reversal where deprivation not shown likely to continue despite incarceration)
In the Interest of R. C. M., 284 Ga. App. 791 (2007) (reunification considerations; court must base findings on legal evidence)
In the Interest of M. L. P., 231 Ga. App. 223 (1998) (due process and evidentiary standards in termination)
In the Interest of J. E. E., 228 Ga. App. 831 (1997) (parental rights termination and due process concerns)
Stills v. Johnson, 272 Ga. 645 (2000) (parole prospects; incarceration timing as conjecture)