In the Interest of L. E. P.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of L. E. P.

356 S.E.2d 527, 182 Ga. App. 560, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1750

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1987

Docket73923

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.E.2d 527 (In the Interest of L. E. P.) 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 the Interest of L. E. P., 356 S.E.2d 527, 182 Ga. App. 560, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, the natural mother of L. E. P., appeals a juvenile court order declaring the 7-year-old child to be deprived and placing the child in the custody of the county department of family and children services.

The evidence introduced at the hearing revealed that the child [561]*561had been sexually abused on a number of occasions by her stepfather in the family home. The stepfather subsequently pled guilty to child molestation based on this conduct. There was also evidence that the appellant was aware the child was being molested but failed to protect her. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the court’s finding that her own father is the biological father of L. E. P., as well as the court’s finding that she was aware the child was being molested yet failed to protect her. She contends that the court erred in finding L. E. P. to be deprived and that the court’s order is technically deficient because it does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Held:

Decided April 6, 1987. William D. Smith, Randie H. Siegel, for appellant. Robert J. Nesmith, Solicitor, Jonath A. Morrow, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

1. There was no dispute that L. E. P. had been sexually abused by her stepfather, and there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s determination that the appellant was aware of her husband’s conduct. The issue of whether the appellant’s father is also the father of L. E. P. came into the case only as a collateral matter affecting the appellant’s credibility, and its resolution was unnecessary to the court’s dispositional order. Moreover, the court’s finding on this issue was amply supported by the evidence. We are satisfied that there was “clear and convincing” evidence to support the court’s finding of deprivation and consequently that the transfer of temporary custody to the department of family and children services was fully authorized. See generally OCGA § 15-11-33 (b); In re Suggs, 249 Ga. 365 (2) (291 SE2d 233) (1982).

2. The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the trial court’s order are both procedurally adequate and supported by the evidence. See generally Brown v. Fulton County Dept. of Family &c. Svcs., 136 Ga. App. 308 (3) (220 SE2d 790) (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Benham, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, the natural mother of L. E. P., appeals a juvenile court order declaring the 7-year-old child to be deprived and placing the child in the custody of the county department of family and children services.

The evidence introduced at the hearing revealed that the child [561]*561had been sexually abused on a number of occasions by her stepfather in the family home. The stepfather subsequently pled guilty to child molestation based on this conduct. There was also evidence that the appellant was aware the child was being molested but failed to protect her. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the court’s finding that her own father is the biological father of L. E. P., as well as the court’s finding that she was aware the child was being molested yet failed to protect her. She contends that the court erred in finding L. E. P. to be deprived and that the court’s order is technically deficient because it does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Held:

Decided April 6, 1987. William D. Smith, Randie H. Siegel, for appellant. Robert J. Nesmith, Solicitor, Jonath A. Morrow, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

1. There was no dispute that L. E. P. had been sexually abused by her stepfather, and there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s determination that the appellant was aware of her husband’s conduct. The issue of whether the appellant’s father is also the father of L. E. P. came into the case only as a collateral matter affecting the appellant’s credibility, and its resolution was unnecessary to the court’s dispositional order. Moreover, the court’s finding on this issue was amply supported by the evidence. We are satisfied that there was “clear and convincing” evidence to support the court’s finding of deprivation and consequently that the transfer of temporary custody to the department of family and children services was fully authorized. See generally OCGA § 15-11-33 (b); In re Suggs, 249 Ga. 365 (2) (291 SE2d 233) (1982).

2. The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the trial court’s order are both procedurally adequate and supported by the evidence. See generally Brown v. Fulton County Dept. of Family &c. Svcs., 136 Ga. App. 308 (3) (220 SE2d 790) (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Benham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.E.2d 527, 182 Ga. App. 560, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-l-e-p-gactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack