In the Interest of T. B.

Citations: 249 Ga. App. 283; 548 S.E.2d 45; 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1417; 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 487Docket: A01A0329

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; April 19, 2001; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court, led by Judge Ruffin, reversed the termination of parental rights for the appellant, the mother of T.B., citing insufficient evidence. The Georgia Department of Human Resources, through the Bulloch County Department of Family and Children Services (DFACS), initiated the termination process on November 1, 1999. Key events include: 

1. In August 1997, the appellant left a violent relationship while pregnant with T.B. and her two other children, subsequently entering a shelter.
2. Following a drug-related arrest, her children were taken into custody, and she entered a drug rehabilitation program, which she completed, followed by a second program at the Women's Place.
3. T.B. was born on March 3, 1998, during her second treatment, but shortly after, the appellant was discharged for rule violations and DFACS removed T.B. due to her lack of housing.
4. The juvenile court placed T.B. in foster care on April 6, 1998, and later determined T.B. was deprived, granting DFACS temporary custody and establishing a reunification plan requiring stable housing, counseling, and regular contact with T.B.
5. The appellant struggled to maintain stable housing and employment; after various temporary living situations and job challenges, she moved to Atlanta in July 1999, securing a job with an insurance company and eventually obtaining her own apartment.
6. While she visited T.B. monthly initially, compliance with the visitation requirement diminished after her move to Atlanta, where she visited only once between July 1999 and January 2000, during which T.B. was placed with a relative in Nebraska.
7. The appellant admitted that T.B. did not recognize her as 'mother' but believed a connection existed through their visits. Testimony indicated that the appellant did not fulfill the goals of her reunification plan. 

Ultimately, the court found that the evidence did not substantiate the termination of her parental rights.

The appellant demonstrated a history of instability, frequently changing jobs and residences, and was often unemployed. DFACS found no records of her attending alcohol or drug counseling, with only a psychological evaluation noted. Appellant failed to keep DFACS informed of her address changes and did not comply with the reunification plan's visitation requirements for her child, T. B. Although she claimed to have attended mental health counseling and completed a parenting class, she tested positive for cocaine in September 1998. The juvenile court ultimately terminated her parental rights on March 6, 2000, citing a lack of parental care and control, evidenced by her instability and failure to provide a stable home. The court concluded that T. B. was deprived due to appellant's actions, and these conditions were likely to persist, potentially harming the child.

For termination of parental rights, the juvenile court follows a two-step analysis that requires clear and convincing evidence of four factors: the child’s deprivation, the cause of deprivation due to lack of parental care, the likelihood of continued deprivation, and potential harm to the child. The evidence presented showed appellant’s previous failures but also noted positive changes, such as securing stable employment and housing, enrolling in counseling, and paying child support. Despite these improvements, the court emphasized the appellant's past instability as a significant concern, suggesting skepticism about the permanence of her recent changes.

General statements regarding parental rights do not apply universally; they are context-dependent. Evidence presented indicates that prior to the filing of DFACS's termination petition in November 1999, the appellant began to stabilize her life and maintained these efforts subsequently. Her recent actions cannot simply be dismissed as "positive promises" that contradict a negative past. The court found that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude with clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's prior instability would likely persist. Consequently, the juvenile court's decision to terminate her parental rights to T.B. was erroneous. The appeal does not address the custody of the children involved. The appellant’s departure from a program was due to interpersonal complications and a minor incident involving diapers taken without permission. Prior case law emphasizes that past unfitness alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights, and recent improvements in a parent's conduct must be evaluated by the trial court. The record did not provide clear and convincing evidence of ongoing deprivation, leading to the judgment being reversed.