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

Juvenile court’s order, reversed, to extent it awarded custody of first child to father, vacated, to the extent it found reunification was not in second child’s best interests and placed her with her paternal grandmother, and, affirmed to extent it found second child derived; juvenile court did not err in finding second child deprived because evidence showed that mother physically abused child on at least two occasions, police were notified on one of those occasions, mother pled guilty to simple battery, and mother’s psychologist testified that she believed it was unwise to return children to mother’s custody unless and until mother sought further psychiatric counseling; however, juvenile court’s order was insufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review on issue of whether reunification was not in second child’s best interest because it did not specify which, if any, of presumptions under O.C.G.A § 15-11-58 (h) supported its findings; juvenile court’s placement of second child with paternal grandmother, vacated, because no evidence showed that grandmother’s qualifications were submitted prior to juvenile court’s custody decision; juvenile court erred in transferring custody of first child to father, after it specifically found that first child was not deprived, because in deprivation proceeding, juvenile court is only authorized to transfer custody of deprived child.

In the Interest of T.S., A11A0420 (06/16/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, July 1, 2011

Order returning temporary custody of children to DFACS for additional 12 months and authorizing DFACS to discontinue providing reunification services, vacated, and case remanded; evidence that child was abused was based on child’s out-of-court statements, which were inadmissible hearsay because government did not show that child available to testify as required by child-hearsay statute; although trial courts presumably do not consider inadmissible evidence, order extensively discussed and relied upon hearsay, and no admissible evidence supported trial court’s findings; any error in trial court’s dismissal of new deprivation charges not addressed because mother could not show any harm from dismissal.

In the Interest of A.T., A11A0495 (06/07/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Juvenile court’s order regarding terminating temporary guardianship of minor children by their grandmother, reversed; trial courts are required to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in all non-jury trials; because guardianship is similar to custody and written findings are required in contested child custody cases, juvenile court erred by failing to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In the Interest of A.R., A11A0147 (06/09/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Order ruling that primary custody of parties’ child should be granted to father, affirmed, as trial court did not err in so ruling, based upon mother’s planned move to New York; mother visited New York with child and moved some of child’s belongings to New York, without receiving written authorization from trial court, despite trial court’s order providing that parties were not to remove child from state of Georgia during pendency of case without further written order from trial court; mother’s claim that trial court erred in failing to make written findings of fact regarding material change in circumstances justifying change in custody to father, rejected.

Gallo v. Kofler, S11A0185 (06/13/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 2011

Final judgment of divorce, affirmed; trial court did not err by ordering alimony for wife because wife is disabled and husband’s income is sufficient to pay for wife’s health insurance for two years and car payments for one year; evidence supported trial court’s division of marital property; contrary to husband’s contention, trial court did not hold him in contempt of temporary order, because trial court specifically found that his disobedience of temporary order was not willful.

McDonald v. McDonald, S11F0112 (06/13/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, June 24, 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

Dismissal of petition seeking custody of plaintiff’s two minor granddaughters, reversed, as trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failed to state claim; petition gave fair notice that plaintiffs sought custody of children under O.C.G.A. §§ 19-7-1 (b.1) and 19-9-2 based on mother’s alleged murder of father, and these allegations were sufficient to survive motion to dismiss; collateral estoppel did not bar custody action because plaintiff’s prior unsuccessful petition for visitation involved different legal issues; res judicata did not bar custody action because O.C.G.A. § 19-9-45 only applies to issues actually decided in prior action and visitation order related to plaintiffs’ right to visitation, not custody.

Scott v, Scott, A11A1206 (09/20/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, October 7, 2011