Patty v. Department of Human Resources, 59585

• Decision Date: 29 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 59585,59585
• Citation: 154 Ga.App. 455,269 S.E.2d 30
• Parties: PATTY v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 30

269 S.E.2d 30

154 Ga.App. 455

PATTY v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

No. 59585.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued March 5, 1980,

Decided April 9, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1980.

Philip Louis Ruppert, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Larry A. Foster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carol Atha Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., C. Crandle Bray, Riverdale, for appellee. DEEN, Chief Judge.

On December 9, 1977, the Georgia Department of Human Resources acting through the Clayton County Department of Family & Children Services brought a petition in the Juvenile Court of Clayton County for the termination of Paula Patty's parental rights in her two-year-old child. After a hearing on May 25, 1978, the court found that the child was deprived and in need of continued foster care, but continued the case for three months "to give the mother an opportunity to show that she could establish a stable environment, and to present positive evidence . . . of her ability to nurture, care and provide for (the) child." After the October 26, 1978, hearing, the court found that the deprivation was likely to continue and appellant's parental rights were terminated.

1. Appellant first contends that there was insufficient evidence to find deprivation or probable continued deprivation.

At the first hearing the evidence showed that when Ms. Patty was sixteen, unmarried and four months pregnant, she was referred to DFCS for counseling and on their advice entered a Florence Crittendon home during her seventh month of pregnancy to receive further counseling. After her daughter's birth, she was unable to make a decision as to whether to keep the child or release it for adoption and requested DFCS to place it in a temporary foster home. Appellant returned to her mother's home, re-entered high school and within two weeks requested that the child be released to her. Apparently, however, there was a great deal of conflict in the home between Ms. Patty and her mother who wanted the baby released for adoption because she felt that she could not afford to support another child. As a result, appellant requested the DFCS to provide foster care for herself and the child when it was about five and one-half weeks old. At this point, the mother and child entered a series of foster homes, sometimes together and sometimes separately until appellant was seventeen and left foster care. There is testimony that during the period Paula and her child were together in foster care she was not responsive to the child's crying and would leave the baby with a sitter for long periods of time without prior permission or letting the sitter know her whereabouts. After leaving foster care, appellant apparently left high school, changed her place of residence frequently and held several jobs. The department contends that it encouraged her to make plans to take the baby back with her, but Paula stated that she was not ready to have the child. In November of 1977, DFCS petitioned the court for temporary custody of the child alleging that the mother's whereabouts were unknown. Appellant testified that after she left foster care she did not contact DFCS about visitation but maintained contact with her child through the foster mother and after her child's foster family was changed she learned about the petition and contacted DFCS to arrange visitation.

After the hearing on October 26, 1978, the court found "that since the date of the last hearing the mother has lived in four different locations, three of which were temporary dwellings with various friends, finally locating in a small efficiency apartment in July, where she has lived since that date;

"That the mother's record of employment, since the date of the last hearing, was quite erratic including termination from three jobs that she held for brief periods of time; That two of the job terminations were as a result of failure to obey the employer's rules and as a result of insubordination.

"That at the date of the final court hearing, the mother produced no documentary evidence as to her actual earnings or wages; or her ability to financially support the child;

"In addition, the mother was unable to show any plan for the child's care during the hours she would be away from the child; That in fact the caseworker had attempted two weeks prior to the hearing date to get the mother to discuss a child care plan and was advised by the mother that she had developed no such plan; Further the mother failed to show to the Court's satisfaction that she had, in fact, made any attempt to devise any such plan for the care of the child.

"The Court finds that the mother's actions indicate no desire to regain custody of her child, or to provide her child with proper care and supervision, or to take an affirmative action to resist the action filed by the Family and Children Services to terminate her parental rights. Further, that said mother's actions indicate no desire on her part to remove the minor child from a deprived state as was found in the May 25, 1978, hearing."

An examination of the hearing transcript shows that these findings are both incomplete and inaccurate. From the record, it is clear that appellant attempted to comply with the court's May order to establish a stable environment for herself and the child. Although the apartment she had rented for three and one-half months prior to the hearing was small, the caseworker testified that she had visited it and found it to be adequate for Paula and her child, that it was kept spotless, that Paula had made it look real "homey," that there was a small yard in back suitable for the child to play in, and that the rent was a modest $65 a month.

As to her employment, the evidence showed that appellant was completely self-supporting and had not requested any financial assistance from a state agency since leaving foster care. She had maintained a part-time house cleaning job for the past two years which currently paid her $50 a week. This employment and her earnings as a waitress were verified by the...