597 S.E.2d 531 | Ga. Ct. App. | 2004
C. T., the biological mother of D. M. W, appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights
On appeal from a termination order, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s rights to custody have been lost.
So viewed, the evidence shows that C. T. was arrested when D. M. W. was six months old and charged with kidnapping and armed robbery. While C. T. remained incarcerated, D. M. W. was removed from the home of his maternal grandmother and placed in the custody of DFCS, pursuant to an order for shelter care entered by the juvenile court on August 23, 2001. At that time the child was nine months old. DFCS determined that his grandmother was not a suitable placement for the child, because she was elderly and did not have the mental or physical capacity to care for him. Meanwhile, the putative father had not legitimated D. M. W. On November 6, 2001, the juvenile court entered a 72-hour order, relating back to the August 23 hearing, finding D. M. W. to be deprived and continued DFCS’s
On August 28, 2001, DFCS filed a deprivation petition concerning D. M. W. The juvenile court conducted a hearing on that petition on September 6, and again entered an order finding that D. M. W. was deprived. That order was never appealed. DFCS developed a 30-day reunification plan for C. T.,
DFCS filed a petition to terminate the rights of D. M. W.’s parents on July 8, 2002. At the hearing on the petition, the court heard the testimony of C. T., the DFCS case manager, and one of C. T.’s relatives. The trial court also admitted the written report of the child’s guardian ad litem, which recommended the termination of C. T.’s parental rights.
The caseworker, Leah Waters, testified that C. T. failed to comply with all of the goals of her reunification case plan. Although C. T. sent Waters five letters expressing her love for the child and her desire to be reconciled with him, the caseworker was unaware of any significant bond between the child and C. T. Waters further testified that C. T. had nine years left to serve on her sentence; that D. M. W. would be twelve years old upon her release; that the child would not be negatively affected by the termination of C. T.’s parental rights; that C. T. could not comply with a reunification case plan in the near future; that if the court terminated the child’s parents’ rights, DFCS’s permanency plan for him was adoption; that his foster parents wanted to adopt him; that after investigating the relatives identified by C. T., DFCS determined that none of them would be a suitable placement for D. M. W.; and that none of those relatives ever tried to visit the child.
C. T. testified that she had taken a nine-month parenting class while in prison and did not want to lose her rights to D. M. W.; that she did not know when she would be released from prison; that she
The juvenile court entered an order terminating C. T.’s parental rights on February 28, 2003. C. T. appeals.
Before terminating parental rights, a juvenile court must employ a two-prong test.
1. The juvenile court entered orders finding that D. M. W. was deprived on August 23, 2001, and on September 6, 2001, which C. T. did not appeal. “Therefore, [she] is bound by this finding of deprivation and the first factor is satisfied.”
2. C. T. also argues that the trial court erred by finding that the lack of proper parental care or control caused the child’s deprivation. In so finding, “the court shall consider the various factors established by OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (B) and (C). OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (B) (iii) provides that the court shall consider the conviction of the parent of a felony and imprisonment therefor which has a demonstrable negative effect on the quality of the parent-child relationship.”
Since D. M. W. is not in C. T.’s custody, the juvenile court was also required to determine whether C. T. failed to comply with OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (C) (i)-(iii) in assessing whether the child was without proper parental care and control. That statute requires a consideration of whether, without substantial justification, for a period of one year or longer prior to the filing of the termination petition, the mother failed significantly: “(i) [t]o develop and maintain a parental bond with the child in a meaningful, supportive manner; (ii) [t]o provide for the care and support of the child as required by law or judicial decree; and (iii) [t]o comply with a court ordered plan designed to reunite the child with the [appellant].”
3. C. T. argues that there was insufficient evidence that the deprivation would continue and that D. M. W. had been harmed by
Judgment affirmed.
The order also terminates the rights of D. M. W.’s biological/putative father and her legal father, but they are not parties to this appeal.
In the Interest of S. H., 251 Ga. App. 555 (1) (553 SE2d 849) (2001).
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C. F., 251 Ga. App. 708 (555 SE2d 81) (2001).
DFCS also developed case plans for D. M. W.’s biological and legal fathers.
OCGA § 15-11-94 (a); In the Interest of C. F., supra at 711.
OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (A) (i)-(iv); In the Interest of R. N., 224 Ga. App. 202 (480 SE2d 243) (1997).
(Citation omitted.) In the Interest of S. B., 237 Ga. App. 692, 693 (515 SE2d 209) (1999). Accord In the Interest of R. N., supra.
(Citations omitted.) In the Interest of E. C., 225 Ga. App. 12, 15 (482 SE2d 522) (1997).
(Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of K. W., 262 Ga. App. 744, 746 (1) (b) (586 SE2d 423) (2003).
(Footnote omitted.) In the Interest of M. C. L., 251 Ga.App. 132, 134 (1) (a) (553 SE2d 647) (2001); In the Interest of A. T. H., 248 Ga. App. 570, 572 (1) (547 SE2d 299) (2001).
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Stills v. Johnson, 272 Ga. 645, 651 (3) (533 SE2d 695) (2000).
In the Interest of M. C. L., supra at 135 (1). See In the Interest of K. B,, 252 Ga.App. 808, 810 (556 SE2d 922) (2001) (failure to provide parental care and support considered an aggravating circumstance); In the Interest of A. T. H., supra at 572 (1) (aggravating circumstances found where a parent has not visited regularly with the child or established a parental bond and has no present prospects for employment as required by case plan).
OCGA§ 15-11-94 (b) (4) (C).
(Footnote omitted.) In the Interest of A. T. H., supra at 572 (1).
(Footnote omitted.) In the Interest of A. R. G. B., 251 Ga. App. 673, 674 (4) (555 SE2d 42) (2001).
In the Interest of M. N. L., 221 Ga. App. 123, 125 (3) (470 SE2d 753) (1996).
See In the Interest of R. W., 265 Ga.App. 181 (593 SE2d 367) (2004) (incarcerated father’s parental rights terminated where father’s incarceration prevented him from having a relationship with his children, children would be virtual strangers to their father upon his release from prison, and foster family wanted to adopt the children); Turner v. Wright, 217 Ga.App. 368, 369 (1) (457 SE2d 575) (1995) (father’s incarceration and his resulting inability to fulfill the responsibilities of parenthood were due solely to his own voluntary criminal conduct and offered no basis for him to object to the termination of his parental rights).