Busbee v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Busbee v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

231 S.E.2d 137, 140 Ga. App. 365, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1478

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

Docket53049

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 S.E.2d 137 (Busbee v. Georgia Department of Human Resources) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Busbee v. Georgia Department of Human Resources, 231 S.E.2d 137, 140 Ga. App. 365, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1478 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

We previously remanded this case with direction that the juvenile court vacate an earlier judgment terminating the parental rights of the father of this juvenile girl, and directed the court below to cause appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to be made and to enter a new judgment. Crook v. Dept. of Human Resources, 137 Ga. App. 817 (224 SE2d 806) (1976) (cert. den.). At that time there was no appeal by the divorced mother, whose parental rights were also terminated. The trial court has now made findings of fact, and by a new order has adjudged the juvenile to be a deprived child within the meaning of Code Ann. § 24A-401 (h) (1) and has terminated the parental rights of both parents.

From that judgment the mother appeals. There is no appeal by the father.¹ The appeal was submitted by one who is not an attorney at law but claims he has an "exclusive power of attorney” to "exclusively” act for the mother. As such, he has no right to practice law and to prosecute the case. Rather than dismiss it, however, we shall in this instance treat the appeal as a pro se appearance by the mother.

The transcript amply supports the findings of fact by the trial judge that this juvenile girl was a deprived child within the meaning of the statute, that is, ". . . without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for [her] physical, mental, or emotional health or morals...” [366]*366Section 24A-401(h) of the Juvenile Court Code (Code Ann. § 24A-401 (h)(1)); Morris v. Dept. of Family &c. Services, 127 Ga. App. 36 (192 SE2d 389) (1972). The order terminating the parental rights of both the father and the mother was proper. Code Ann. § 24A-3201 (a)(2). If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we must affirm. Wiles v. Brothers, 138 Ga. App. 616 (3) (226 SE2d 805) (1976).

Argued November 2, 1976 Decided November 8, 1976 Sadie Crook Busbee, pro se. John Robert Parks, Divine, Wilkin, Deriso & Raulerson, Walter M. Deriso, Jr., Carol Cosgrove, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Webb, Judge.

We previously remanded this case with direction that the juvenile court vacate an earlier judgment terminating the parental rights of the father of this juvenile girl, and directed the court below to cause appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to be made and to enter a new judgment. Crook v. Dept. of Human Resources, 137 Ga. App. 817 (224 SE2d 806) (1976) (cert. den.). At that time there was no appeal by the divorced mother, whose parental rights were also terminated. The trial court has now made findings of fact, and by a new order has adjudged the juvenile to be a deprived child within the meaning of Code Ann. § 24A-401 (h) (1) and has terminated the parental rights of both parents.

From that judgment the mother appeals. There is no appeal by the father.¹ The appeal was submitted by one who is not an attorney at law but claims he has an "exclusive power of attorney” to "exclusively” act for the mother. As such, he has no right to practice law and to prosecute the case. Rather than dismiss it, however, we shall in this instance treat the appeal as a pro se appearance by the mother.

The transcript amply supports the findings of fact by the trial judge that this juvenile girl was a deprived child within the meaning of the statute, that is, ". . . without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for [her] physical, mental, or emotional health or morals...” [366]*366Section 24A-401(h) of the Juvenile Court Code (Code Ann. § 24A-401 (h)(1)); Morris v. Dept. of Family &c. Services, 127 Ga. App. 36 (192 SE2d 389) (1972). The order terminating the parental rights of both the father and the mother was proper. Code Ann. § 24A-3201 (a)(2). If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we must affirm. Wiles v. Brothers, 138 Ga. App. 616 (3) (226 SE2d 805) (1976).

Argued November 2, 1976 Decided November 8, 1976 Sadie Crook Busbee, pro se. John Robert Parks, Divine, Wilkin, Deriso & Raulerson, Walter M. Deriso, Jr., Carol Cosgrove, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 S.E.2d 137, 140 Ga. App. 365, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busbee-v-georgia-department-of-human-resources-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack