 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re N.M.H.11/7/2001
The biological mother of N. M. H., B. S. H., and G. L. H., appeals the juvenile court's termination of her parental rights, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the termination. For the reasons below, we affirm.
The standard of review for the termination of parental rights is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the parent, a rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's rights should be lost. "This Court neither weighs evidence nor determines the credibility of witnesses; rather we defer to the trial court's fact finding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met."
The record shows that the Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services (DFACS) removed the children from the home and placed them in emergency custody on July 3, 1998 following a report to the local sheriff's department that the children were unsupervised. Upon investigation, a deputy sheriff verified that the oldest two children, ages two and three, were playing outside unsupervised and found the youngest, age one, locked in a bedroom. The deputy reported that the youngest child was covered with feces and had severe diaper rash. The milk in the child's bottle was reportedly sour and solidified. The house was in disarray, with open food and dirty dishes in the living room and kitchen, beer bottles and clothing lying around and beds without linen.
The mother could not be found at the time. The children were taken into custody and a deprivation hearing was held on July 17, 1998, after which time, in an unappealed order, they were deemed deprived and placed in foster care. There was no family able or willing to care for the children. In December of 1998, a Court Appointed Special Advocate was appointed guardian ad litem for the children.
The mother agreed to a reunification plan that required her to (1) meet her mental health needs by obtaining a psychological evaluation and following through with any recommendations, (2) improve her parenting skills, (3) obtain and maintain employment and housing for herself and her children and, (4) visit or contact her children twice monthly. Following the children's removal and upon the suggestion by her caseworker that it might expedite the return of her children, the mother married the children's biological father, Ralph. They separated a short time later and she moved to South Carolina to live with her mother.
In June of 1999, the special advocate reported that the mother had accomplished most of the goals of her reunification plan within the first five months, and that she appeared willing to do anything to have her children returned. The special advocate reported that, while the children were thriving in their foster home, there was a true bond between the mother and the children. The special advocate made follow-up recommendations, including the placement of a parent aide in the home and that weekend visits be established before total reunification. Later that month, DFACS moved for a five month extension of the original removal order for more time to coordinate the reunification of the mother and her children, including a home evaluation of the maternal grandmother's home in South Carolina and the mother's completion of parenting classes.
A custody extension hearing was held thereafter, at which time the special advocate expressed concern over the stability of the mother's housing arrangements. The special advocate reported that prior to the hearing, the grandmother threatened to throw the mother out of her home because of the mother's drinking and unemployment. The juvenile court terminated the temporary custody
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|