The Supreme Court partially reversed the final judgment in the parties’ divorce case, holding that the trial court improperly denied the father’s motion for new trial based on the incorporation of a parenting plan providing that the child’s therapist had the authority to determine the termination of supervision of the father’s overnight visitation with the child. Because the provision was a material change in visitation that allowed for an automatic change of the father’s visitation without judicial scrutiny into the child’s best interests, it constituted an invalid self-executing change of visitation that the trial court should not have included in the judgment and divorce decree.

Johnson v. Johnson, S11F1856 (1/09/12)
Fulton County Daily Report, January 13, 2012

Termination of mother’s parental rights to her older child, affirmed, as evidence authorized juvenile court to find that mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to termination of her rights; mother claimed that her attorney gave her option of proceeding with termination hearing and risking loss of both children or signing consent for older child, who presumable had special needs, while retaining her rights to younger child for at least six months so that she could continue to work on her case plan, however, no evidence showed that fraudulent representations were made regarding older child’s health condition to induce mother to sign written consent; mother admitted to her attorney that she knew older child had special needs, she declined opportunity to review child’s medical records with her attorney, and she proceeded with executing voluntary written consent, based on her own observations of child’s special needs, rather than awaiting further psychiatric evaluation regarding child’s questionable autism diagnosis; no evidence showed that mother signed consent under duress—any pressure in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (12), rejected, since Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that due process does not require state to provide appellant review to civil litigants, even in termination of parental rights cases.

In the Interest of A. B., a child, A11A1281 (09/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 23, 2011

Dismissal of biological mother’s appeal from denial of her motion for new trial following grant of petition to terminate her parental rights, affirmed, as trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that mother’s failure to timely pursue filing of transcript or seek extension of time for almost one year was unreasonable and inexcusable; although mother argued that dismissal of appeal deprived her of due process because of significance of terminating her parental rights, Court held that need to reach final resolution expeditiously applied in such cases because children need permanence of home and emotional stability and should not be required to linger indefinitely in foster care.

In the Interest of T. H. , A11A1028 (08/26/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, September 9, 2011

Order terminating mother’s parental rights, affirmed, as evidence supported it; specifically, evidence supported juvenile court’s determination that children were deprived because mother failed to appeal prior finding of deprivation, and conditions upon which that finding was based, namely mother’s lack of supervision and lack of insight into her parenting responsibility, still existed at termination hearing; evidence showing mother’s persistent failure to adequately supervise her children as well as her failure to demonstrate insight into her shortcomings, despite two interventions by DFACS and months of counseling, also supported juvenile court’s finding that cause of deprivation was likely to continue; finally, evidence—of harm the children already endured, that only after being provided intensive counseling did children demonstrate improvement, that upon return to mother, children lacked same medical and psychological care, and that their foster mother had bonded with them and wished to adopt them—supported juvenile court’s determination that continued deprivation was likely to cause harm to children.

In Interest of T.A.H., A11A0245 (06/16/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 1, 2011

Order terminating children’s father’s parental rights, affirmed, as children were deprived, father was unable to provide proper care for children, deprivation was likely to continue and termination was in children’s best interest; after being granted unsupervised visitation with children, father beat one child with belt on child’s buttocks, legs and thighs resulting in child’s hospitalization, father was arrested for child cruelty, and when asked about incident by juvenile court, he exercised Fifth Amendment rights; father had cognitive problems that affected his ability to parent and to implement skills learned in parenting classes and counseling, he had history of anger management problems, engaged in angry outburst in telephone call with evaluating psychologist, admitted to physically disciplining one child in connection with toilet training and displayed anger in regards to one child’s toilet training.

In the Interest of T. P., A11A0304 (07/08/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 29, 2011

Increase in mother’s visitation with her two children, affirmed, as it did not exceed time of custody allowed to father and thus did not amount to de facto change of custody; trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting parties’ communication with each other and attendance at children’s extracurricular activities, as these provisions did not infringe upon father’s rights and were narrowly tailored conditions justified by evidence; father failed to show that trial court’s refusal to admit certain cumulative custody evaluation reports was harmful, or that trial court abused its discretion in considering totality of evidence; denial of father’s motion for supersedeas, affirmed, as trial court did not exceed its authority in exempting visitation provisions of final order from supersedeas even after father filed note of appeal.

Blackmore v. Blackmore, A11A1277; A11A1526 (10/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, October 21, 2011

Placement of 2-year-old twins in custody of their uncle and aunt until their 18^th birthday, vacated, and case remanded, as juvenile court’s order did not include finding that referral for termination of parental rights and adoption was not in twins’ best interest, as required for award of long-term custody.

In the Interest of J. C. W., A11A1549 (10/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, October 21, 2011

Order lifting certain restrictions on visitation rights of mother AFFIRMED, as OCGA 19-9-3(b) authorized trial court to modify visitation rights during contempt proceeding; trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying terms of final judgment to allow mother to resume unsupervised visitation because no evidence showed that mother was present danger to children as she testified that since her visitation rights have been restricted based on her failure to demonstrate that someone had directly witnessed her give urine sample for certain test, she had been seeing physician specializing in addiction medicine and had provided him with urine samples for testing, and no evidence showed that she actually tested positive for drugs or alcohol during prior test or at any subsequent test.

Gildar v. Gildar, A11A0759 (06/01/11)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, (06/17/2011)

Denial of father’s motion to hold mother, father’s ex-wife, in contempt for failing to comply with couple’s 2005 divorce decree, which awarded father legal and primary physical custody of couple’s children, AFFIRMED; grant of mother’s petition for change in custody and award of joint legal an primary physical custody of children to mother, AFFIRMED; consolidation of father’s motion for contempt and mother’s custody petition was not prohibited by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-23, because custody action was filed as separate action in father’s county, not as responsive pleading; moreover, father cannot complain, because he did not object to consolidation and acquiesced in joint hearing; trial court DID NOT ERR in denying father’s contempt motion, because there was no evidence of willful disobedience of court order; trial court DID NOT ERR in granting mother’s custody petition on grounds that material change of condition affecting welfare of children had occurred since last order, because evidence showed that father failed to provide financially for his children, was uninvolved in their lives and did not enforce original custody order despite being awarded primary physical custody of children.

Saravia v. Mendoza, A10A0391, A10A0392 (03/31/10), 10 FCDR 1173

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, (04/16/2010).

Order denying father’s petition to legitimate minor and terminating father’s parental rights AFFIRMED, as trial court did not err in denying father’s legitimation petition; father abandoned his opportunity interest to develop relationship with minor, since father did not spend any significant time with minor, after living with minor for one year, and did not pay child support or send cards or letters to minor; father’s argument that trial court wrongfully denied right to counsel during termination of parental rights hearing, REJECTED, because he lacked standing to challenge termination of his rights; father’s contention that juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, REJECTED, because juvenile court has original jurisdiction unless termination petition is filed in connection with formal adoption proceedings.

In the Interest of J.S., A10A0186 (02/12/2010), 10 FCDR 413.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, 2/26/2010.