In the Interest Of: D. L. T. and H. S. B., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: August 19, 2013
• Docket: A13A0883
• Status: Published

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

August 19, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A13A0883. IN THE INTEREST OF D. L. T. et al., children.

RAY, Judge.

Tim and Tammy Blankenship appeal from the juvenile court’s dispositional

order placing two minor children, D. L. T. and H. S. B., in the permanent custody of

the Paulding County Department of Family and Children Services (“DFACS”)

preparatory to their adoption by their foster parents. The Blankenships are the

paternal grandparents of H. S. B., but have no biological relationship with D. L. T.,

who is H. S. B.’s half-brother. On appeal, the Blankenships argue that the juvenile

court abused its discretion in refusing to place the children with them after DFACS

allegedly promised to do so if they completed certain requirements. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm. On October 21, 2010, the juvenile court ordered shelter care for D. L. T. and

for H. S. B. The children’s mother had been arrested four days earlier after attacking

the Blankenships’ son, Justin Blankenship, who is the putative father of H. S. B. The

mother also had threatened to kill herself and the children.

In a December 17, 2010, order, the juvenile court found that while in the

mother’s care, D. L. T. had been locked in a room and left to play with his own feces,

and that Tammy Blankenship knew about this incident. The juvenile court found that

the children were deprived, and they were placed with Tim and Tammy Blankenship

for five or six weeks. During that time, Tammy Blankenship contacted DFACS three

times within a week to say she was having a hard time handling the children and was

exhausted. She asked if only D. L. T. could be removed. DFACS informed her that

they believed it was in the children’s best interest to keep the siblings together.

Before DFACS had time to arrange for daycare services or other help, Tammy

Blankenship asked that both children be removed. They were removed in November

2010, and since then have lived with the foster parents who wish to adopt them.

During part of the time the children have been in foster care, Tim and Tammy

Blankenship had visitation.

2 On July 12, 2012, DFACS petitioned to terminate the rights of D. L. T.’s and

H. S. B.’s biological parents, and Tim and Tammy Blankenship intervened, seeking

to have both children placed in their custody. After the children’s biological parents

voluntarily surrendered all parental rights, the children were placed in DFACS’

custody over the objection of Tim and Tammy Blankenship. The Blankenships

appeal.

OCGA § 15-11-103 (a) provides that

Upon the entering of an order terminating the parental rights of a parent, a placement may be made only if the court finds that such placement is in the best interest of the child and in accordance with the child’s court approved permanency plan pursuant to Code Section 15-11-58. In determining which placement is in the child’s best interest, the court shall enter findings of fact reflecting its consideration of the following: (1) The child’s need for a placement that offers the greatest degree of legal permanence and security; (2) The least disruptive placement alternative for the child; (3) The child’s sense of attachment and need for continuity of relationships; and (4) Any other factors the court deems relevant to its determination.1

1 This statute is repealed effective January 1, 2014, pursuant to Ga. L. 2013, Act 127 § 1-1.

3 Following the termination of parental rights, juvenile courts are not obligated

to attempt to place a child with relatives, but need only consider the best interests of

the child. In the Interest of S. R. C. J., 317 Ga. App. 699, 705 (1) (b) (732 SE2d 547)

(2012). “Because there is no conclusive preference given to relatives, the juvenile

court is afforded wide discretion to determine whether a child should be placed with

a relative or kept in a stable foster home.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the

Interest of J. J., 299 Ga. App. 271, 277 (3) (682 SE2d 349) (2009). See also In the

Interest of S. N., 291 Ga. App. 628, 633 (2) (662 SE2d 381) (2008) (no abuse of

discretion found where juvenile court declined to place children with parents of

mother’s ex-husband, with whom children had no relationship, biological or

otherwise).

In their sole enumeration of error, the Blankenships argue that although

DFACS promised to place the grandchildren with them, it never had a genuine

intention of doing so, and thus “[s]imilar to the doctrine of promissory estoppel,

DFACS should not be permitted to make promises to parties and create the

expectation of placement and then withdraw their commitment . . . [and] the trial

court . . . should not adopt such an effort.”

4 As an initial matter, the Blankenships cite no authority for this proposition.

Also, they do not point us to anything in the record, nor do we find any such

evidence, showing that DFACS promised to place the children with them. It is clear

that DFACS considered but ultimately rejected them for placement.

At the dispositional hearing, a DFACS supervisor testified that Tammy

Blankenship asked for the children to be removed before a home evaluation could be

completed. The supervisor also testified that Tammy Blankenship appeared to have

trouble bonding with D. L. T. and showed favoritism to H. S. B., and stated that she

believed Tammy Blankenship asked for custody of D. L. T. only when DFACS made

it clear that the children would not be separated. She testified that DFACS was

concerned about placement with Tim and Tammy Blankenship because the latter

knew that D. L. T. was being neglected but did not inform DFACS or attempt to

protect him. The supervisor cited an occasion where Tammy Blankenship visited a

hotel where the mother was living and found D. L. T. locked in a bedroom and

screaming, but did not call DFACS or explain why she took no action. The supervisor

also expressed concern over whether Tim and Tammy Blankenship could protect the

children given that while the children were living with them, Justin Blankenship had

been at their home, drunk and disruptive, and they had not asked him to leave, and

5 because the Tim and Tammy Blankenship had asked if he could move back into their

home.

A licensed professional counselor testified as an expert for DFACS after

observing six hour-long visitations between D. L. T. and Tim and Tammy

Blankenship, and after doing individual counseling with D. L. T. The counselor

testified that D. L. T. was aggressive toward or withdrawn from Tammy Blankenship

during these visits, kicking her at one point and at another retreating into the fetal

position. D. L. T. also displayed disturbing behaviors in his foster home following

visits with Tammy Blankenship, including urinating on himself and the floor, soiling

himself and spreading it on the couch, and screaming that he would have to leave his

foster home and that he “had to” visit with Tammy Blankenship. The counselor

observed that D. L. T. was affectionate and bonded with his foster parents, but

generally was not affectionate with Tammy Blankenship, would turn his head when

she tried to kiss him, and had not bonded to her. Because of the aforementioned

behaviors, the therapist recommended that his visits with Tim and Tammy

Blankenship be stopped and that D. L. T. not be placed with them. She also

recommended that D. L. T. and H. S. B. be placed in a home together because of their

sibling bond and that it was in their best interest to remain with their foster family.

6 A licenced psychologist who meets with D. L. T. on a weekly basis also

testified on behalf of DFACS. She testified that when she first started seeing D. L. T.

in 2011, he was emotionally unstable, had anger issues, and was aggressive. When

she asked him why he was so angry, he stated that he did not like to visit with Tammy

Blankenship but had no choice. After his visits with Tim and Tammy Blankenship

were terminated, the psychologist testified that D. L. T.

calmed down quite a bit. He’s not nearly as angry. He’s not nearly as aggressive. The nightmares that had reoccurred during that period of time were again not a problem. In fact, he didn’t have any after the visits stopped. During those visits, he had been wetting and soiling himself and that [re]gression had also corrected itself after the visits.

She testified that D. L. T. had bonded with his foster parents, and that removal from

the foster home would be difficult and damaging to him, and probably to H. S. B. as

well.

Tammy Blankenship testified that she did not have problems standing up to her

son, denied that he would be allowed at the home if she got custody of the children,

and testified that she wanted custody of both children, not just H. S. B. She stated that

when she asked DFACS to remove D. L. T., she thought the removal would be

temporary.

7 The children’s foster mother testified that she and her husband wanted to adopt

the children, that the children were bonded to one another and to her and her husband,

and that D. L. T.’s behavior improved once the visits with Tim and Tammy

Blankenship stopped.

After the above-described hearing, the juvenile court entered an order denying

request to place the children with Tim and Tammy Blankenship. The juvenile court

instead gave custody to DFACS in preparation for the children’s adoption by their

foster parents. In that order, the juvenile court found that Tammy Blankenship

minimized Justin Blankenship’s violent behavior and his drinking problem and “gave

little thought as to how the parent’s dysfunction affected her grandchildren.” The

court considered placing the children with Tim and Tammy Blankenship, but noted

that because of their “denial and co-dependency issues,” DFACS had asked them to

attend counseling. Although they were “involved once” with counseling, it was with

a non-licensed, unqualified provider, and they failed to provide verification that they

obtained the needed counseling. The juvenile court found that DFACS announced in

November 2011 that it would begin transitional visits with the grandparents, but 15

months later, the visits had not yet begun because the grandparents had failed to

provide required documents. Visits finally began, but the children’s therapist

8 recommended that they be discontinued after only six visits because of the problems

with D. L. T.’s behavior. The juvenile court further found that Tim and Tammy

Blankenship “failed to protect [D. L. T.] when he was two from the abuse suffered at

the hands of [his mother and Justin Blankenship],” and later called DFACS to “come

and get him” because they were unable to handle him. The juvenile court found that

because of their denial issues, the grandparents were unable to parent the two children

on their own and would not protect the children from their mother and Justin

Blankenship. The trial court also found that placing the children with Tim and

Tammy Blankenship or separating the children would cause emotional harm, and that

placement with the Blankenships was not in the children’s best interest.

Although there was some conflicting testimony, this Court will not re-weigh

the evidence, nor will we reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. See In the Interest

of D. B., 306 Ga. App. 129, 137 (1) (701 SE2d 588) (2010). Thus, in light of the

evidence outlined above, “the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that the children should be kept in their stable foster home rather than

placed with [Tim and Tammy Blankenship].” (Citations omitted.) In the Interest of

J. J., supra at 278 (3). Nor did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in determining

that “placement of [H. S. B.] with [her] paternal grand[parents] would result in the

9 siblings no longer being together, while continued placement in the foster home

would allow the siblings to remain together and be adopted by the foster parents.” In

the Interest of M. C., 287 Ga. App. 766, 771-772 (3) (653 SE2d 120) (2007). We find

no error.

Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.