Gardner v. Lenon, 59543
| Decision Date | 28 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59543,59543 |
| Citation | 154 Ga.App. 748,270 S.E.2d 36 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. LENON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Eloise W. Newhard, Atlanta, for appellant.
Sharman M. Meade, Atlanta, for appellees.
Termination of parental rights. The facts show that the natural mother, Tommie Gardner, gave birth to the child in question in July, 1973, while an inmate in Alderson Federal Reformatory in Alderson, West Virginia. She was granted an emergency absence to place the child with a personal friend in Atlanta. This friend in turn placed the child, with the mother's consent, with a second couple, the Davises. When the marriage of the Davises began to disintegrate, the child was placed with a third couple (the Lenons), apparently without knowledge of the mother. In June, 1974, a determination of deprivation was made and the child was formally placed in the custody of the Davises. The facts show that Gardner was released from prison in March, 1975. From March, 1975 until August, 1976, the mother was in Atlanta but during that time, the child was in the custody of the Davises on the weekends and the Lenons during the week. In January, 1976, Gardner obtained visitation rights and either visited the boy in the Davis home or the boy was delivered to her apartment for several-hour visits. When Gardner kept the boy overly long on some of these visits, she was counseled by the juvenile court. Though the evidence is neither clear nor undisputed, it reasonably appears that after this counseling, Gardner did not visit with, see, or make significant inquiry about her son from sometime in 1976 until a petition for termination was filed in March, 1979, a period of over two years. While Gardner insists that she offered to help support her son financially, the evidence belies that offer to furnish financial support because she was not employed in a full time job until a few days before the hearing; and the custodial families denied that Gardner ever offered any financial support, although Gardner was never asked to furnish any support. Further, it appears that Gardner received vocational training in prison, but apparently did not utilize that training upon her release from the imprisonment. Her opportunities for gainful employment are further affected by the requirement that she be present daily in the methadone program she has been following ever since her return to Atlanta in a successful attempt to remain free of a heroin addiction, although she apparently is addicted to methadone. Both Gardner and her counselor in the methadone program conceded that Gardner emotionally was not ready to leave the program. Again though it is contested, there is evidence presented by a case worker that the six-year-old son enjoys visits to his mother, but is happier in his foster home. There was evidence that during recent visits pending the hearing, Gardner repeatedly informed her son that she was his mother, that a named person was the cause of their separation and that they would soon be back together. The case worker indicated that this tended to confuse the six-year-old and caused emotional distress. Lastly, there is evidence that Gardner is nervous, has suffered a heart problem but otherwise appears to be in good health. The juvenile court found that visits to the mother have not profited the child emotionally; that Gardner has made no consistent, conscientious effort to support her son; concluded that the mother has shown a lack of concern and an inability or unwillingness to provide for the physical and emotional support of the boy. The court concluded on the basis of such evidence that the child was a deprived child; that the conditions of deprivation are likely to continue; and that the child probably will suffer irreparable physical and emotional harm. In view of those findings, the court terminated the parental rights of both the mother, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chancey v. Department of Human Resources
... ... 74(2), 262 S.E.2d 241 (1979); Shover v. DHR, 155 Ga.App. 38, 270 S.E.2d 462 (1980); Gardner v. Lenon, 154 Ga.App. 748, 270 ... S.E.2d 36 (1980). Accord In the Interest of J. C., 242 Ga ... ...
-
M.M.A., In re
...(Code Ann. §§ 24A-2301; 24A-3201; 74-109, 74-110); Byers v. Loftis, 208 Ga. 398, 67 S.E.2d 118 (1951). See also Gardner v. Lenon, 154 Ga.App. 748, 270 S.E.2d 36 (1980); Patty v. DHR, 154 Ga.App. 455, 269 S.E.2d 30 The record is devoid of evidence that any of the conditions enumerated in the......
-
Long v. Long
...actual adjudication of the deprivation petition. See OCGA §§ 15-11-39.2; 15-11-48(f). 11. OCGA § 23-1-5. 12. See Gardner v. Lenon, 154 Ga.App. 748, 749-750, 270 S.E.2d 36 (1980). 13. OCGA § 15-11-55(c). 14. Id. 15. OCGA § 15-11-55(a)(2)(A). 16. Seckinger v. C & S Nat. Bank, 213 Ga. 586, 587......
-
S.M.L., In Interest of
...152. We emphasize that the juvenile court's primary responsibility is to consider the welfare of the child. See Gardner v. Lenon, 154 Ga.App. 748, 749, 270 S.E.2d 36 (1980); In the Interest of L.L.W., 141 Ga.App. 32, 33, 232 S.E.2d 378 (1977). The juvenile court noted in its order regarding......