In Re Dq

704 S.E.2d 444
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 24, 2010
DocketA10A1336
StatusPublished

This text of 704 S.E.2d 444 (In Re Dq) 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
In Re Dq, 704 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

704 S.E.2d 444 (2010)

In the Interest of D.Q. et al., children.

No. A10A1336.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

November 24, 2010.

*445 James K. Luttrell, Woodstock, for appellant.

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Shalen S. Nelson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Andrea R. Moldovan, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

The mother of D.Q. and J.Q. appeals from the order of the juvenile court finding the children to be deprived. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that there was no clear and convincing evidence of emotional or physical abuse and that the evidence showed that she had provided the children with the required counseling.

On appeal from a juvenile court's order finding deprivation, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived. In doing so, we neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; instead, we defer to the trial court's factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met.

(Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) In the Interest of H.S., 285 Ga.App. 839, 648 S.E.2d 143 (2007).

So viewed, the evidence shows that in January 2009, the Douglas County Department of Family and Children Services ("DFACS") received a referral regarding 14-year-old D.Q. The mother had taken D.Q. to Douglas Wellstar Hospital and requested that he be admitted for his behavior, and when the hospital would not admit the child because he did not fit the admission criteria, the mother refused to take him home. The mother admitted to staff that she bit D.Q. during the altercation.

Upon the mother's request for assistance with D.Q., the case manager referred the family for in-home services. The mother, however, refused to sign a release for D.Q.'s medical and mental health history. She told the caseworker that she would provide DFACS with the information. The mother signed a safety plan which referenced her request for "assistance with interventions for [D.Q.] in the event that he attack[ed] her." Neither child was removed from the home.

On March 6, 2009, the mother attended a family planning meeting, and a family plan was created which required her to "provide protection and safety for [the] children with the steps focusing on [her] meeting the children's medical/mental health and educational needs." She was also required to use appropriate forms of discipline, participate in counseling with D.Q., follow the recommendations of the counselor, and maintain safe housing.

*446 On July 21, 2009, DFACS filed a deprivation petition alleging that the mother had only minimally complied with the family plan, had failed to take the children to their psychiatrist in a timely manner, and was inconsistent with regard to the children's mental health, behavioral, and educational needs. The petition also alleged that 13-year-old J.Q. was cutting herself and was often late to school because the medications she took caused her to oversleep. It further alleged that the mother was not forthcoming with required medical and educational information about the children and was "unable to provide all of the needful and necessary parental care, guidance and supervision required to assure the health, safety, welfare, and well-being" of D.Q. and J.Q.

On September 22, 2009 nunc pro tunc to August 7, 2009, the juvenile court issued an order finding probable cause of deprivation because of the mother's failure to cooperate with the family plan, address the children's mental health issues, or fully cooperate with DFACS. Four adjudicatory hearings at which the mother was present were held on August 7, 2009, September 9, 2009, October 16, 2009, and November 18, 2009.[1]

The DFACS caseworker testified that the mother had yet to fully comply with the family plan she signed related to the needs of D.Q. and J.Q. DFACS had not received signed medical releases it needed to substantiate the mental health treatment the mother claimed the children were receiving. Although DFACS offered the mother mental health services for the children through OASIS counseling center, the mother was not receptive to the assistance and would not schedule the appointments.

The caseworker also testified that when she visited the home in May 2009, she discovered that J.Q. was cutting herself, and although she emphasized to the mother that a family team meeting needed to be held to amend the family plan to include services for J.Q.'s mental health issues, the mother was never available to meet until after the deprivation petition was filed. The caseworker testified that the mother also called the police on D.Q. for unruly behavior, but later dismissed the complaint.

The children's primary care doctor testified that he began seeing D.Q. and J.Q. in 2004. The doctor testified that at D.Q.'s first office visit, he was informed by the mother that D.Q. had a seizure disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). He testified that although he had prescribed Adderall for both children, he had not tested the children for ADHD, but that they were "already diagnosed with ADHD" before they became his patients. The doctor also testified that he prescribed Depakote for D.Q. because the child had epilepsy, based on an earlier diagnosis. The doctor admitted that he had no records from a neurologist making the diagnosis, but that the mother told him that D.Q. had epilepsy.

The primary care doctor also testified that the mother did not tell him about the children's other mental health issues, including that she had attempted to have D.Q. admitted into a hospital for emergency mental health assistance, or that J.Q. was cutting herself. The doctor testified that he had never seen any medical records from the children's other doctors, that he obtained his information about the children's medical background from the mother, and that she was a good reporter of her children's medical problems.

The children's psychiatrist testified that he had been treating the children since 2004, and that he had made a diagnosis of ADHD and bipolar disorder. However, he did not provide individual counseling for the children. The psychiatrist testified that he had originally treated D.Q. and J.Q. with Adderall, Risperdal, Depakote, and Zoloft, but at the time of the November hearing, the children were only taking Adderall because the children's "anger and mood swings" had substantially subsided. The psychiatrist was not aware that the children were also prescribed Adderall by their primary care doctor and testified that he did not know that D.Q. was taking Depakote. The psychiatrist also testified *447 that he was aware that D.Q. was exhibiting aggressive behavior at school and toward his mother, and also that J.Q. had bitten a teacher and stabbed another student with a pencil. He further testified that he had briefly prescribed Risperdal for J.Q.'s cutting, but that he discontinued the medication after about one month when her condition stabilized.

The mother testified at the deprivation hearing that D.Q. had been hospitalized several times starting at "about five or six years old" for his mental health issues. She also testified that J.Q.

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

Related

In the Interest of J. C. J.
428 S.E.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
In the Interest of B. H.
378 S.E.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
In the Interest of S. J.
607 S.E.2d 225 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
In the Interest of R. M.
624 S.E.2d 182 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
In the Interest of D. T.
643 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
In the Interest of H. S.
648 S.E.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
In the Interest of D. Q.
704 S.E.2d 444 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
704 S.E.2d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dq-gactapp-2010.