In re C.A.
Decision Date | 13 June 2012 |
Docket Number | No. A12A0431.,A12A0431. |
Parties | In the Interest of C.A., a child. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Josephine Bryant Jones, Macon, W. Ashley Hawkins, Forsyth, Samuel S. Olens, Atlanta, Shalen S. Nelson, for In the Interest of C.A., a child.
Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the mother of C.A., a fifteen-month-old girl, appeals from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights. For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
The record before us includes a 66–page transcript from the termination hearing in which only the DFACS caseworker, the mother, and an assistant pastor in the mother's church testified. Although the mother requested that the juvenile court clerk omit nothing from the record, the record before us does not include any case plans nor any of the pleadings or orders from the deprivation proceedings. The only pleadings in the record before us relate to the petition for termination of the mother and father's parental rights.
The record shows that C.A. was born premature (29 weeks gestation) on February 24, 2010. The caseworker testified that DFACS became involved while the child remained in the hospital after “receiv[ing] a report that the mother was acting childlike and she also admitted to having another child taken from her custody.” The caseworker agreed that “a term that was previously used in a hearing was schizophrenia” and that “[t]hey said she was acting like that.” The caseworker testified that DFACS obtained custody of the child on April 5, 2010 “[d]ue to [the mother] not having any family at the time and also due to the reports of schizophrenia.” The caseworker testified that the child was placed in a foster home that has continuously cared for the child and would like to adopt her.
The caseworker testified that DFACS entered into a reunification plan with the mother on April 22, 2010 that required her “to follow all of the recommendations from her mental health provider, complete the parenting classes and maintain stable housing.” Her plan also required her to take proper medications and work with a parent aide. The caseworker testified that when the mother learned she was pregnant again 1 “she had to stop taking her medication, but she did complete her parenting classes.”
The caseworker acknowledged that the mother visited her daughter on a regular basis and missed only two visits due to a doctor's appointment and the birth of another child. Despite these regular visits, the caseworker testified that the child was not bonded to the mother and cried during visits. The mother did not pay any child support, but did buy the child a Christmas gift.
According to the caseworker, the mother did not maintain stable housing because she moved six times in one year and was currentlyliving with a boyfriend who has “an extensive criminal history.” The caseworker acknowledged during cross-examination that some of the mother's reasons for moving were not unreasonable and that the mother had informed her when she moved.
The caseworker admitted that the mother could “change diapers, cook, look after the child,” but explained that there “was a concern that she won't be able to do it independently, that she would need supervision.” Based upon a CCFA 2 and the psychological report, the caseworker testified that she did not believe the mother could take care of the child. While the mother completed all of the parenting classes, the caseworker did not believe that the mother completed them successfully based upon information she received from the parenting aide. The caseworker testified that the parenting aide told her that “she didn't think [the mother] could really understand some of the parenting techniques that she taught her.”
The caseworker testified that DFACS sought to terminate the mother's parental rights because Other than the diagnosis of schizophrenia, the caseworker was not aware of any other physical or mental problems of the mother.
During cross-examination, the caseworker acknowledged that the mother had informed her that she believed she was no longer schizophrenic, that she had been living in a home owned by her church pastor for the past four months, and that she received social security disability payments in the amount of $657 a month.
The mother testified that after the birth of her last child in March 2011, she underwent a tubal ligation to prevent additional pregnancies. Following this birth, she sought treatment with a doctor because she knew she needed some help “cause of my stuff.” She began taking Risperdal, an anti-psychotic medication, and Trazadone, an anti-depressant medication. The mother explained that she was functioning better with this medication.
The mother testified that medications previously prescribed to her by a different doctor were too strong and caused her to hear voices. According to the mother, this medication resulted in someone saying she had schizophrenia. She stopped hearing voices when she stopped taking the too-powerful medication over a year before the termination hearing. She denied ever experiencing visual hallucinations. She explained that she had been receiving social security disability benefits for about four years based upon a diagnosis of sickle cell anemia and depression, not schizophrenia. She testified that the sickle cell anemia caused her to “get tired and stuff in my legs.” She denied that anyone had talked with her about the need to pay child support for her daughter.
She explained that her church is like a second family to her and they are willing to help her with her daughter in ways other than residing with the mother. The assistant pastor for her church testified that she met the mother two months before the hearing. She explained that the mother and her boyfriend were renting a home owned by the pastor of the church and that the church had provided her assistance with clothing, food, and utilities.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted that there was an unappealed order of deprivation and
The trial court subsequently signed an order prepared by DFACS's attorney. Although the certified transcript does not reflect that DFACS introduced any exhibits into evidence, the order states that DFACS introduced into evidence 3
The findings of fact portion of the order states that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Darst v. State
...solely from the credit of the witness but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons.”); 25In the Interest of C.A., 316 Ga.App. 185, 189–190, 728 S.E.2d 816 (2012) (The diagnostic opinion of a third party who was not available for cross-examination, as well as a Department......
-
In re Interest of S.B.
...should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.A., 316 Ga.App. 185, 189, 728 S.E.2d 816 (2012) ; see also In the Interest of C.S., supra, 319 Ga.App. at 144 –145(1), 735 S.E.2d 140.As a threshold matter, we mus......
- Mattox v. Franklin Cnty.
-
In re D.J.
...the issue. We cannot say, therefore, that these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Cf. In the Interest of C.A., 316 Ga.App. 185, 189–190, 728 S.E.2d 816 (2012) (reversing termination order where no evidence presented of medically verifiable mental deficiency). Further,......