Termination of mother’s parental rights to her three children, AFFIRMED, as evidence supported it; mother had history of displaying bizarre, paranoid behavior, she stopped taking her prescribed medication and skipped her mental health appointments, she failed to clean her home, she provided no evidence of employment or ability to pay monthly living expenses, she failed to pay child support and she failed to maintain bond with her children.

In the Interest of S.P., A09A15 (11/12/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report  (12/4/ 2009)

Termination of father’s parental rights, AFFIRMED, as evidence supported it; father never contacted children nor DFACS during his 5-year incarceration, he failed to maintain or establish meaningful bond with children, essentially abandoning them and, even before his incarceration, he only saw children sporadically, despite his purported concern that mother abused drugs; continued deprivation was likely to cause harm due to children’s emotional and psychological frailty and termination was in children’s best interest.

In the Interest of T.L.H. and O.D.H., A09A1177

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/4/2009

Deprivation order AFFIRMED as evidence supported it; mother repeatedly subjected children to unwarranted and unnecessary forensic interviews and medical exams in her unsuccessful attempts to substantiate sexual abuse by their father.

In the Interest of S.K. and A.K., A09A1357 (11/13/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/4/2009)

GA orders granting sole custody of son to mother and sole custody of daughter to father, AFFIRMED;  mother’s contention that juvenile court erred in denying motion for reunification was meritless, since juvenile court sustained motion for reunification; juvenile court was authorized to find material change in circumstances because mother had suffered decline in mental health; juvenile court did not abuse discretion by determining that it was in daugher’s best interest to live with father, despite father’s acts of family violence; juvenile court did not err in denying mother’s discovery requests as untimely, because re-trial order required all discovery to be filed by 30 days after order and mother waited until almost nie moths later to file motion to compel discovery.

In the Interest of T.S. & L.S., A09A1294 (11/05/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/4/2009)

Termination of mother and father’s parental rights and award of custody to DHR, AFFIRMED, juvenile court did not lack jurisdiction to proceed with dispostional hearing, even though parents executed voluntary surrender in favor of maternal great-grandparents on September 15, 2008, since juvenile court’s order, wich was not filed until September 17, 2008, clearly stated that it was nunc pro tunc to September 3, 2008, date of termination hearing; juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in treating great-grandparents’ ages as dispositive factor in dispositional hearing, because juvenile’s court’s duty to consider best interest of child gives court discretion to consider many factors and evidence showed that DHR recommended foster family for child’s long-term placement and child had developed attchements to family.

In the Interest of D.C.H., A09A1557 (11/06/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 12/4/2009

Order finding child deprived AFFIRMED as evidence supported it; evidence showed that then 5-month-old infant was sexually abused while she was solely in care of her mother and father and mother failed to protect infant from injury.

IN THE INTEREST OF K.L., (a09a1449 (10/21/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (11/06/2009)

Termination of parents’ rights AFFIRMED, as evidence supported it; mother failed to comply with reunification case plans, was uncooperative with drug screener, failed to pay child support consistently and failed to maintain stable housing and employment; father was incarcerated majority of time between shelter order and hearing on termination petition, he continued his alcohol abuse and was terminated from program to assist with his drinking and anger problems; continued deprivation was likely to cause harm, since children had been in foster care for three years and foster parents provided children with security and stability that mother did not.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/16/2009)

In the Interest of A.J.D.S., A09A1883, A09A1884 (09/25/09), 09 FCDR 3203.

Attorneys:  Earle W. Angell, Willie J. Woodruff Jr., Marie K. Evans, thurbert E. Baker, Shalen S. Nelson, Elizabeth M. Williamson.

Judges:  Robert Cullifer, Stephens Juvenile Court; Ellington, Mikell,  Johnson;  Georgia Court of Appeals
.

Order placing 4-year-old boy in DFACS’s custody, rather than with his paternal uncle and aunt, AFFIRMED; OCGA 19-8-7(a) did not require juvenile court to place child with his relatives, regardless of whether child’s father validly surrendered his parental right to them;  OCGA 15-11-103 does not require courts to give preference to family members in placing child following termination of parental rights and, in this case, juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that immediate placement with uncle and aunt was not in child’s best interest, due to emotion impact of abrupt transition away from his foster family; uncle and aunt had right to directly appeal dispositional order placing boy in DFACS’s custody.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/16/2009)

In the Interest of C.B., A09A1099 (10/01/09), 09 FCDR 3202

Attorneys:  Larry A. Ballew, Randall A. Meincke, thurbert E. Baker, Shalen S. Nelson, Kathryn A. Fox, Rochelle A. Doyle, Jennifer L. Pirrung

Judges:   J. Russell Jackson, Forsyth Juvenile Court; Phipps, Smith, Bernes, Georgia Court of Appeals.

Termination of mother’s parental rights and grant of stepmother’s adoption petition, REVERSED;  insufficient evidence supported finding that mother abandoned her child under OCGA 19-18-10(a)(1) – mother did not act or fail to act with intention to entirely sever her parental obligations and claims;  OCGA 19-18-10 (b)(1)and(2) did not authorize adoption, since insufficient evidence showed that mother unjustifiably failed to communicate with and support her child for one year or longer prior to filing of adoption petition; although mother was incarcerated from August 2005 until January 2009, she sent cards or letters to child four times a month from February 2006 until her release and evidence showed that child’s father unilaterally decided that allowing child to read her mother’s letters was not in child’s best interest; while mother did not pay child support during incarceration due to her inability to earn any income, no evidence showed mother’s financial condition during this period; OCGA 19-8-10 (a)(4) did not authorize adoption, since no evidence showed that child’s deprivation was likely to continue, now that mother was out of prison, and completed substance abuse rehabilitation and had received significant occupational training.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/16/09)

In re petition of Morgan Marks for the Adoption of G.M.M., A09A1897 (09/25/09), 09 FCDR 3198

Attorneys:  James J. Hopkins, Doris C. Orleck

Judges:  James J. Simpson, Carroll Superior Court;  Johnson, Mikell,  Elington, Georgia Court of Appeals

Termination of father’s parental rights affirmed as clear and convincing evidence that incarcerated father sexually abused child supported it;

Court could address father’s constitutional challenge to OCGA 5-6-36 (a)(12), requiring decretionary appeals by application from orders terminating parental rights, rather than by direct appeal, even though father did not raise issue in trial court, since challenge fell within limited exception to general rule in instance of challenge to consitutionality of statue governing appellate procedure that is necessarily made for first time on appeal;

5-16-35 (a)(12) did not deny father equal protection, since it does not treat similarly-situated individuals differently; individual subject to termination of parential rights cannot be equated to individual, who faces interruption of custody, since termination is much more severe measure;

Assuming arguendo that father demonstrated similarly-situated requirement, equal protection challenge still failed, since classification is reasonable and state has legitimate interest in not permitting children determined to be deprived to languish in temporary care, but instead, to leave this situation for permanent stable homes as expeditiously as possible, and discretionary appeal process helps accomplish this goal.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (12/16/09)

In re:  A.C., S09A0931 (10/05/09), 09 FCDR 3148

Attorney:  Phillip Jackson, Abdulhakim Saadiq, Tyrone M. Hodnett II

Judges:  Sanford J. Jones, Fulton Juvenile Court; Supreme Court of Georgia:  Hines