Roberts v. State, 53139
| Decision Date | 28 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53139,No. 3,53139,3 |
| Citation | 233 S.E.2d 224,141 Ga.App. 268 |
| Parties | Dolly Ann ROBERTS v. STATE of Georgia |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Mary Walton Whiteman, Decatur, for appellant.
Robert L. Littlefield, Jr., A. Joseph Nardone, Jr., Anne Workman, Sol., Decatur, for appellee.
This "deprived child" case makes its second appearance following remand for the trial court to make specific findings of deprivation in accordance with Crook v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 137 Ga.App. 817, 224 S.E.2d 806. See Roberts v. State of Ga., 139 Ga.App. 353, 228 S.E.2d 376. Having entered that finding, Miss Roberts, appellant, again appeals from the order which terminates her parental rights in the child under the Juvenile Code, Ga.L.1971, pp. 709, 747; 1974, p. 389; 1974, pp. 1126, 1133 (Code Ann. § 24A-3201(a)(2)). Appellant enumerates two errors both of which assert basically the same issue that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of deprivation because the trial judge accepted a lower standard of proof than is required by the Juvenile Court Code.
The evidence developed at the hearings showed that a baby boy was born out of wedlock to appellant on April 10, 1975. Appellant, at the time, was 14 years old, and initially professed not knowing the father, maintaining that she had been raped. She later revealed the father's identity, and he was made a part of the proceedings though he never appeared apparently because he could not be located. Immediately after the baby's birth, the Department of Family and Children Services of DeKalb County obtained temporary custody of the child pursuant to court order.
Appellant was initially undecided as to whether to attempt to raise the baby herself or put the baby up for adoption. Appellant lived with her grandparents, ages 74 and 88 and her brother, age 14. She was unemployed and attended a special school for the educably mentally retarded. A psychologist testified that I.Q. tests showed her to be borderline retarded, primarily attributable to her stuttering and her impoverished cultural and educational background. He testified further that she was normal emotionally, and that in his opinion would be able to care for the child. There was also evidence that appellant's academic performance was at a third grade level and that it would take approximately four years training before she could perform on the job market.
Appellant testified at the hearing that she wanted to take the baby home, but she was unable to articulate her reasons, even though the judge let her counsel ask leading questions. Appellant did demonstrate that she could make change and testified that she could be a maid or could clean kitchens.
Appellant's grandmother testified that she would like to have appellant bring the baby home, but that, due to her age and illness, she could not herself care for the baby.
Guardians were appointed for both appellant and the child for the proceeding. The child's guardian agreed to have appellant's parental rights severed and consented to having the child placed for adoption.
Based on these facts, the trial court determined that the child was deprived and that the deprivation was likely to continue and would not be remedied, and by reason thereof, the child would probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral and emotional harm. Held:
Appellant contends that because she has never had custody of the child since its birth, that there is no history of deprivation and that a finding of deprivation cannot be based on what might happen in the future. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chancey v. Department of Human Resources
...Ga.App. 219, 257 S.E.2d 340 (1979); Hainut v. Houston Co. DFCS, 154 Ga.App. 556, 269 S.E.2d 61 (1980). Accord Roberts v. State of Ga., 141 Ga.App. 268, 233 S.E.2d 224 (1977); Banks v. DHR, 141 Ga.App. 347, 233 S.E.2d 449 (1977); Powell v. DHR, 147 Ga.App. 251(1), 248 S.E.2d 553 (1978). In o......
-
E.C., In Interest of, A97A0454
...not required to reunite E. C. with appellant in order to obtain current evidence of deprivation or neglect. See Roberts v. State, 141 Ga.App. 268, 270, 233 S.E.2d 224 (1977) (holding that "there is no reason why a determination of deprivation may not be made on proof that the conditions und......
-
M.A.V., In Interest of, A92A1059
...McMURRAY, P.J., and COOPER, J., concur. 1 We note that the primary case relied upon by the trial court, Roberts v. State of Ga., 141 Ga.App. 268, 233 S.E.2d 224 (1977) overruled by Chancey v. Dept. of Human Resources, 156 Ga.App. 338, 274 S.E.2d 728 (1980), predates the holdings in Santosky......
-
L.A., In re
...159 Ga.App. 649, 284 S.E.2d 666 (1981); Jones v. Dept. of Human Resources, 155 Ga.App. 371, 271 S.E.2d 27 (1980); Roberts v. State, 141 Ga.App. 268, 233 S.E.2d 224 (1977). The evidence of her lack of motivation in the past, and her present living conditions, which the homemaker's, aide test......