Hainut v. Houston County Department of Family & Children Services

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hainut v. Houston County Department of Family & Children Services

269 S.E.2d 61, 154 Ga. App. 556, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2281

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 8, 1980

Docket59672

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 S.E.2d 61 (Hainut v. Houston County Department of Family & Children Services) 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

Hainut v. Houston County Department of Family & Children Services, 269 S.E.2d 61, 154 Ga. App. 556, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2281 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Elizabeth Hainut brings this appeal from an order of the Juvenile Court of Houston County terminating her parental rights with respect to her nine-year-old son.

In her sole enumeration of error, Ms. Hainut contends that "[t]he trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of appellant because there was no evidence to indicate that the child in question was a deprived child and because there was no evidence to indicate that, even if the child was a deprived child, that appellant had contributed in any way to the deprivation of said child.”

We find no merit in these contentions. This court has repeatedly held that "the definition of'deprived child’ focuses upon the needs of the child regardless of parental fault... The petition is brought on behalf of the child and it is [the child’s] welfare and not who is responsible for the conditions which amount to deprivation that is the issue.” Brown v. Fulton County Dept. of Family &c. Services, 136 Ga. App. 308, 309 (220 SE2d 790) (1975). Accord, Cox v. Dept. of Human Resources, 148 Ga. App. 43 (250 SE2d 839) (1978). Ms. Hainut’s assertion that she did not contribute to the deprivation of her son is simply not germane, to the issue of whether termination of parental rights will be in the best interest of the child.

Moreover, the record in this case is replete with evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the child here [557]*557involved is deprived and that such deprivation would be likely to continue if the parental rights of Ms. Hainut were not terminated. As a result, we will not disturb the order of the trial court in the instant case. Cox v. Dept. of Human Resources, supra; Roberts v. State of Ga., 141 Ga. App. 268, 270 (233 SE2d 224) (1977).

Submitted April 9, 1980 Decided May 8, 1980. R. Joneal Lee, for appellant. L. A. McConnell, Jr., Lawrence E. O’Neal, Carol Atha Cos-grove, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

Elizabeth Hainut brings this appeal from an order of the Juvenile Court of Houston County terminating her parental rights with respect to her nine-year-old son.

In her sole enumeration of error, Ms. Hainut contends that "[t]he trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of appellant because there was no evidence to indicate that the child in question was a deprived child and because there was no evidence to indicate that, even if the child was a deprived child, that appellant had contributed in any way to the deprivation of said child.”

We find no merit in these contentions. This court has repeatedly held that "the definition of'deprived child’ focuses upon the needs of the child regardless of parental fault... The petition is brought on behalf of the child and it is [the child’s] welfare and not who is responsible for the conditions which amount to deprivation that is the issue.” Brown v. Fulton County Dept. of Family &c. Services, 136 Ga. App. 308, 309 (220 SE2d 790) (1975). Accord, Cox v. Dept. of Human Resources, 148 Ga. App. 43 (250 SE2d 839) (1978). Ms. Hainut’s assertion that she did not contribute to the deprivation of her son is simply not germane, to the issue of whether termination of parental rights will be in the best interest of the child.

Moreover, the record in this case is replete with evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the child here [557]*557involved is deprived and that such deprivation would be likely to continue if the parental rights of Ms. Hainut were not terminated. As a result, we will not disturb the order of the trial court in the instant case. Cox v. Dept. of Human Resources, supra; Roberts v. State of Ga., 141 Ga. App. 268, 270 (233 SE2d 224) (1977).

Submitted April 9, 1980 Decided May 8, 1980. R. Joneal Lee, for appellant. L. A. McConnell, Jr., Lawrence E. O’Neal, Carol Atha Cos-grove, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.E.2d 61, 154 Ga. App. 556, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hainut-v-houston-county-department-of-family-children-services-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack