In the Interest Of: J. B.

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MCFADDEN and MCMILLIAN , 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. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

February 20, 2013

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A12A1206. IN THE INTEREST OF J. B., A CHILD.

MCFADDEN, Judge.

The grandmother and guardian of 13-year-old J. B. appeals the order finding

that the child continues to be deprived and granting continued temporary custody to

the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. The grandmother

argues that the evidence does not show that the child is presently deprived. Because

clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of present

deprivation, we affirm.

On appeal of an order finding a child to be deprived,

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. We do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses; rather, we defer to the trial court’s factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard of review is not met.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of I. W., 304 Ga. App. 225, 229

(3) (695 SE2d 739) (2010).

Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that on June 2, 2009, when he was

nine years old, J. B. was removed from his grandmother’s custody because she left

him alone while she traveled to Florida. The juvenile court found J. B. to be deprived

and placed him in the custody of the DeKalb County Department of Family and

Children Services (“DFCS”). The juvenile court adopted a case plan that required the

grandmother to complete certain goals in order to regain custody of J. B. One of those

goals was to complete family therapy.

In May 2010, the juvenile court extended DFCS custody until May 31, 2011.

In May 2011, DFCS filed a “petition for deprivation after first extension.” DFCS

alleged that the grandmother had completed all of her case plan goals except for the

goal that she complete family therapy. In her response, the grandmother conceded that

she had not completed family therapy but argued that she would have completed the

goal had DFCS timely referred her to a family therapist. She asserted that she now is

2 attending appointments and cooperating with DFCS and the therapist to complete the

goal.

The juvenile court conducted a hearing at which the psychologist who had been

counseling the grandmother and J. B. testified. The juvenile court qualified him as an

expert in family counseling and in determining parental fitness. The psychologist

testified that he had been the family therapist for J. B. and his grandmother since

September 2010. The psychologist found that the grandmother and J. B. did not

communicate well; that they had not adjusted to the death of J. B.’s mother; and that

the grandmother did not acknowledge that her decisions could negatively affect the

child. For example, the psychologist explained that J.B.’s mother died when he was

three, and he therefore did not have any memories of her. When he began asking

about his mother, he was told that she “was on vacation.” Finally, when he was nine

years old and asked where his mother was, the grandmother took him to his mother’s

grave site and told him, “Here is your mother.” This was the same year the

grandmother left the boy home alone while she went to Florida. The child’s behavior

problems substantially increased from that point. The psychologist concluded that the

grandmother had made substantial progress but still demonstrated a need for

counseling.

3 The juvenile court found that J. B. continues to be deprived and granted

continued temporary custody to DFCS. The grandmother appealed, arguing that there

is no evidence that her grandson is presently deprived, given that she has completed

all of her case plan goals.

OCGA § 15-11-2 (8) (A) provides that a child is deprived if he or she “[i]s

without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or

other care or control necessary for the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health

or morals.” (Emphasis supplied.) “That definition focuses upon the needs of the child

regardless of parental fault. The deprivation 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.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the

Interest of R. C. H., 307 Ga. App. 774, 777 (1) (706 SE2d 686) (2011).

The grandmother argues that because she completed her case plan goals, the

child is no longer deprived. But the juvenile court found that the grandmother had not

completed her case plan goals because she had not completed family counseling, and

the evidence supports that finding. In the Interest of H. J., 313 Ga. App. 255, 258 (1)

(721 SE2d 197) (2011). Clear and convincing evidence authorized the juvenile court

to find that J. B. was currently deprived because he was without the “care . . .

4 necessary for [his] . . . mental[ ] or emotional health.” OCGA § 15-11-2 (8) (A). See

In the Interest of H. J., supra, 313 Ga. App. at 258 (1) (“Clear and convincing

evidence authorized the juvenile court to find that the child was currently deprived”

because the father had failed to complete family counseling); In the Interest of N. Y.,

246 Ga. App. 723, 726 (542 SE2d 137) (2000) (clear and convincing evidence

showed that children’s “deprivation would likely continue or would not be remedied

in the absence of an extension of temporary legal custody in DFCS to permit the

father to complete individual counseling and to participate in family counseling, as

appropriate”).

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