H.B., In re
| Decision Date | 01 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 69762,69762 |
| Citation | 174 Ga.App. 435,330 S.E.2d 173 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re H.B. & K.B. |
Hoyt L. Bradford, Sr., pro se.
Philip L. Young, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court refusing to terminate parental rights. The petition was brought by the children's father against their natural mother under OCGA § 15-11-51(a)(4). OCGA § 15-11-51(a) provides: "The court by order may terminate the parental rights of a parent with respect to his child if: ... A decree has been entered by a court of competent jurisdiction of this or any other state ordering the parent ... to support the child and the parent ... (4) has wantonly and willfully failed to comply with the order for a period of 12 months or longer."
The juvenile court found that the mother had made no support payments in accordance with the judgment and decree of the Rockdale Superior Court, but that there was evidence of limited ability to pay and there was evidence that the mother had sent the father $100 which the father claimed not to have received. The juvenile court found that the respondent's failure to pay had not left the children in a deprived state, and found no attempt at abandonment or rejection by the mother. Specifically, the court found that the mother's failure to pay had not been willful or wanton, defining these as "without reasonable excuse, with a conscious disregard of duty, willingly, voluntarily, and intentionally." Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga.App. 758, 773, 120 S.E.2d 786. See Young v. Foster, 148 Ga.App. 737, 739, 252 S.E.2d 680. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that the best interests of the children would not be served by termination of the mother's parental rights.
In determining the provisions of this code section, the juvenile court is vested with a broad discretion which will not be controlled in the absence of manifest abuse. Powell v. Dept. of Human Resources, 147 Ga.App. 251, 248 S.E.2d 533. The trial court had the opportunity to question and observe the parties, and possesses a wide discretion in determining the issues before him, and if the judgment is supported by any evidence and is not clearly erroneous, an appellate court is not authorized to set it aside. Boatman v. Chapman, 174 Ga.App. 77, 329 S.E.2d 185; Ridgley v. Helms, 168 Ga.App. 435, 438, 309 S.E.2d 375.
The evidence in this case amply supported the finding of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.L.B., In Interest of
...and which is not readily amenable to appellate review other than for a manifest abuse of discretion. See generally In re H.B. & K.B., [174 Ga.App. 435 (330 SE2d 173) ]." In the Interest of G.K.J., 187 Ga.App. 443, 444(3), 445, 370 S.E.2d 490. "Moreover, 'those same factors which show the ex......
- W.W.C., In Interest of
-
G.K.J., In Interest of
...of J.L.Y., supra. Accordingly, it was not a manifest abuse of the juvenile court's discretion so to find. See In re H.B. & K.B., 174 Ga.App. 435, 330 S.E.2d 173 (1985). 3. Appellant also enumerates as error the failure of the juvenile court to have included in its order an explicit statemen......
-
R.E.C., In Interest of
...is supported by any evidence and is not clearly erroneous, an appellate court is not authorized to set it aside." In re H.B. & R. K.B., 174 Ga.App. 435, 330 S.E.2d 173 (1985). Accordingly, we find that the trial court correctly found that there was present clear and convincing evidence of p......