Blair v. Division of Family and Children's Services, s. 50547

• Decision Date: 19 June 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 50547,No. 1,50548,s. 50547,1
• Citation: 135 Ga.App. 312,217 S.E.2d 457
• Parties: Debra BLAIR v. DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES. A. B. BLAIR v. DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 457

217 S.E.2d 457

135 Ga.App. 312

Debra BLAIR v. DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES.

A. B. BLAIR v. DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES.

Nos. 50547, 50548.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 19, 1975.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1975.

David B. Higdon, Macon, for appellant.

Thomas C. James, III, Fred M. Hasty, Dist. Atty., Thomas H. Hinson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Macon, for appellee.

BELL, Chief Judge.

These appeals are from an order by a juvenile court terminating the parental rights of the appellants to their two children. In an earlier hearing, which is not in issue here, the juvenile court made a finding that the children were deprived and custody was removed from the appellants and temporary custody was placed in the Bibb County Department of Family and Children's Services for a period of six months. The court's earlier order also provided that at the end of the six months period a hearing would be held to determine final disposition of the custody of the children.

The evidence heard in the first hearing was considered by the juvenile court judge in this case so that he could determine whether the evidence showed that the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue; and that by reason thereof the children would suffer or probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm which is the standard for termination of parental rights applicable to these cases. Code Ann. § 24A-3201(a)(2).

At the prior hearing it was shown that the appellants, husband and wife, who were then living together, had failed to properly provide for the support, maintenance, care and well-being of their children.

Since the first hearing the appellants have separated. The appellant father now resides with his sixty-eight-year-old mother. The appellant mother resides with her parents. The father has had, at the very best, a very spotty work record as he rarely ever worked a full five day week. He was employed by the local public works department. His home does not have electricity or gas. It was also shown that before the separation but after the removal of the custody of the children, a social worker called at their home and found a very limited amount of food available. The appellant father's health was impaired by sugar diabetes and he admits that he has to have financial assistance from his mother. He testified that if he obtained custody of the children he would take care of them by placing them in a...