Diana Rugh Johnson, JD, CWLS
PROBLEMS WE DEAL WITH IN
JUVENILE COURT
 Overly casual atmosphere
 Bad facts  Petition granted
 Burden shifting
 Judge Judy syndrome
 Best interest of the child = trump card
HOW CASE LAW CAN HELP
 Refocus
 Reminder that THIS IS COURT
 Reminder that there are laws
 “I’m not making this up…”
 Implicit threat of appeal  reversal
WHEN TO USE CASE LAW
 Preliminary motions
 Opening statement
 Mid-trial
 Closing argument
USEFUL CASES
Bad Petitions
 In the Interest of C.L.C., 299 Ga. App. 729 (2009)

The juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction
over a child alleged to be deprived, but if the
petition fails to make valid allegations of
deprivation as defined by O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(8),
the matter is not a deprivation proceeding
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
USEFUL CASES
Mental Illness
 In the Interest of C.C., 257 Ga. App. 543 (2002)

A parent’s mental illness alone does not
establish clear and convincing evidence of
deprivation absent evidence of how the
parent’s condition renders her unable to parent
her child.
USEFUL CASES
Domestic Violence
 In the Interest of C.D.E., 248 Ga. App. 756 (2001)
 Evidence failed to support finding of deprivation
where petitioner failed to show that father’s
misdemeanor acts of domestic violence against
his wife, none of which were witnessed by his
children or severe enough to cause bruising, had
any negative effect on his relationship with his
children.
USEFUL CASES
Dirty House
 In the Interest of D.S., 217 Ga. App. 29 (1995)

Deprivation finding reversed when there was
no evidence that the child was experiencing
physical neglect, medical problems,
malnourishment, emotional harm or mental
inadequacies as a result of the filthy living
conditions in the home.
USEFUL CASES
One-Time Incident
 In the Interest of C.L.Z., 283 Ga. App. 247 (2007)
 Deprivation as to the grandmother was reversed
because deprivation finding was based on a
single incident in which witnesses observed
grandmother shouting at the child, forcing the
child’s head into the side of their vehicle, and
tying a piece of clothing over the child’s eyes.
There was no evidence the child was harmed,
that the grandmother had MH issues, or that
this was anything other than an isolated
incident.
USEFUL CASES
Summary Testimony
 In the Interest of A.A., 252 Ga. App. 167 (2001)
 Termination of parental rights reversed because
the state’s principle witness was a new case
manager who relied on a summary of the
previous case manager’s files. Introduction of
this testimony was error because the summary
was hearsay.
USEFUL CASES
Likely to Continue at TPR
 In the Interest of L.J.L., 247 Ga. App. 477 (2001)
 Even when a parent’s past conduct is far from
exemplary, past unfitness alone is not sufficient
to support a termination of parental rights
absent clear and convincing evidence to present
unfitness.
USEFUL CASES
Likelihood of Harm at TPR
 In the Interest of A.T., 271 Ga. App. 470 (2005)
 Termination reversed because there was no
evidence that remaining in foster care would
cause any adverse effect on the children and no
testimony from an expert that permanency and
a stable environment were important to the
children’s well-being or that failure to terminate
would be detrimental to the children.
Undisputed evidence of strong bond between
mother and children.
USEFUL CASES
Best Interest at TPR
 In the Interest of T.P., 270 Ga. App. 700 (2004)
 The state must first establish parental
misconduct before it may consider the best
interest of the child.
USEFUL CASES
Mental Health at NR
 In the Interest of A.M., 306 Ga. App. 358 (2010)
 Allegations that a parent suffers from a
medically verifiable deficiency of mental health
that renders them incapable of providing for the
needs of the children must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence that a parent
lacks the mental competency to care for the
children.
USEFUL CASES
Standard of Proof at Custody Mod
under § 15-11-40(b)
 In re J.N., 302 Ga. App. 631 (2010)
 The burden is on the parent to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that due to
changed circumstances, it is in the best interest
of the child that the requested modification or
vacation of the prior order be granted.
USEFUL CASES
Burden of Proof at Termination of
Temporary Guardianship
 Boddie v. Daniels, 288 Ga. 143 (2010)
 In a custody dispute between a noncustodial
biological parent and a third party, the third
party must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the child will suffer physical or
emotional harm if custody were awarded to the
biological parent by terminating the temporary
guardianship.
USEFUL CASES
Admissibility of Psych Evals
 In the Interest of C.D.E., 248 Ga. App. 756 (2001)
 Records which contain diagnostic opinions of
third parties who are not available for crossexamination are generally inadmissible without
objection. Hearsay evidence has no probative
value even when admitted without objection.
USEFUL CASES
Psychological Testing
 In re D.H., 178 Ga. App. 119 (1986) – Special concurrence
 Compulsory psych evaluation of a family’s children, coupled
with submitting parents to the MMPI psych evaluation,
under the particular facts of this case, appears to be an
unacceptable and unreasonable intrusion into family affairs
by the State, if not a violation of the Right of Privacy under
the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments…Were these types of
evaluation arbitrarily used on the families of social workers,
judges and others who may have unusual and other than
normal living habits and situations, harsh psychological
and disciplinary guidelines could well become the norm
rather than the exception, as there is no assurance that any
of us could pass the test.
USEFUL CASES
Formal Hearings
 In the Interest of A.B., 263 Ga. App. 697 (2003)
 The intervention of the state into the parent-child relationship is
a matter of utmost seriousness, and thus the legislature has
imposed upon the state the burden of proving its allegations of
deprivation by CCE. The record in this case, however, reflects a
proceeding more in the nature of an informal conference than the
requisite evidentiary hearing. Each child…deserves a full,
separate, and thoughtful review by the juvenile court of the issues
relating to him. The proceeding in this case fell far short of this
standard. And while it may be that the trial court knew more
about the case than the paltry record before us reflects, we take
this opportunity to remind counsel of the gravity of the issues
presented and of their responsibility in these matters, including,
but not limited to, making a record for this Court to review in
each case.
TIPS FOR FINDING
GOOD CASE LAW
 Read case law when you don’t have a deadline
 Shepardize cases even when you don’t have to
 Look outside of Title 15
 Read case law updates
 Committee on Justice for Children “Bulletin Board”
 http://justiceforchildren.websitetoolbox.com/post/GA-
Appellate-Law-Summaries-2138888
 Talk to other parent attorneys
SUGGESTION FOR
ORGANIZING CASE LAW
 ITIO AJI (non-compliance w/PO not depr)
 ITIO CLC (petition failed to allege depr)
 ITIO CLZ (single incident ≠ depr)
 ITIO EC (homosexuality not cause of depr)
 ITIO KS (MH problems must be medically verified)
 ITIO MLC (drug use not necessarily depr)
 ITIO TJ (unexplained injuries can be depr)
 ITIO WAP (mom not properly caring for infant)
Diana Rugh Johnson
404-276-0045
dianarughjohnson@bellsouth.net