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

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

Denial of legal father’s motion to intervene in biological father’s legitimation action, REVERSED, as legal father had interest in action; ‘ “[t]here can be no doubt that a man married to a woman at the time of conception or birth is a party at interest when another man claims fatherhood of the child in a legitimation proceeding”‘ ‘ and, since legal father filed his motion to intervene before final judgment was entered, his rights were not protected by another party, and his interest as child’s legal father would be impaired by unfavorable decision; judgment granting biological father’s legitimation peitition, vacated, and case remanded for consideration of legal father’s motion to dismiss.

Baker v. Lankford, A10A1211 (10/05/2010), 10 FCDR 3281

From:  Fulton County Daily Report, October 22, 2010.

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 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