]" OCGA § 15–11–111 (b) (2). Such findings of fact "should be made in accordance with OCGA § 9–11–52 (a)," In the Interest of D.L.G. , 212 Ga. App. 353 (1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (citations and punctuation omitted) (regarding order in deprivation proceeding under former juvenile code), which provides that a court must "find the facts specially and ... state separately its conclusions of law." OCGA § 9–11–52 (a) (emphasis supplied).
"`A bare statement of what the court considered in reaching its conclusions is not a recitation of how those facts give support to or what constitutes the separate conclusions.'" In the Interest of D. L. G., 212 Ga. App. 353 ( 442 S.E.2d 11) (1994). Therefore, we must remand this case with direction that the judgment be vacated; that appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law be made; and a new judgment be entered, after which another appeal may be taken.
It is well settled that under OCGA § 15-11-111 (b) (2), "[a]n order entered following a hearing in a dependency proceeding shall include findings of fact" to be "made in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-52 (a)." In the Interest of B. G. , 345 Ga. App. 167, 168 (1), 812 S.E.2d 552 (2018) (citations and punctuation omitted); accord In theInterest of T. Y. , 350 Ga. App. 553, 561, 829 S.E.2d 808 (2019) ; In the Interest of D. L. G. , 212 Ga. App. 353, 353 (1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994). These findings of fact must reflect consideration of the oral and written testimony offered by the parties and "state not only the end result of that inquiry but the process by which it was reached."
In the absence of any recitation of facts or legal analysis explaining the arbitrator’s decision making, the Arbitration Award did not comply with the express provision of the Consent Order requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. Cf. Sherman v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton County , 320 Ga. App. 689, 693 (1), 740 S.E.2d 663 (2013) (holding that "summary conclusions that contain no hint about the evidence or analysis the court relied on to arrive at them," and that "cite no legal authority and contain no analysis that explains them," fail to qualify as findings of fact and conclusions of law under OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) );In the Interest of D. L. G. , 212 Ga. App. 353, 353 (1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (concluding that when making findings of fact and conclusions of law required under OCGA § 9-11-52 (a), "[t]he trial judge is to ascertain the facts and to state not only the end result of that inquiry but the process by which it was reached. A mere recitation of the events that took place at the trial does not satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-52 (a).
Accordingly, these findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9–11–52(a). See In the Interest of D.L.G., 212 Ga.App. 353(1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (noting that OCGA § 9–11–52(a) requires a trial judge to ascertain facts and to state not only the end result of that inquiry, but the process by which it was reached; holding that “a bare statement of what the court considered in reaching its conclusions is not a recitation of how those facts give support to ... the [court's] conclusions”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Brant v. Bazemore, 173 Ga.App. 294, 295(1), 325 S.E.2d 905 (1985) (holding that an order which contains mere legal conclusions that are unsupported by specific findings of fact does not satisfy OCGA § 9–11–52(a)). And in the absence of the facts and analysis necessary to explain the trial court's holdings, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of those holdings.
In the judgment, the superior court recounted that the “action ha[d] come on for hearing before the Court sitting without a jury” and that the court had “considered the Petition and Complaint, [and] the verified answers of the defendants, [DAFC] and 1138 Peachtree Land Holdings, LLC.” Notably, the judgment made no mention of Sherman, and it failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to various grounds pursued by Sherman.See generally In the Interest of D.L.G., 212 Ga.App. 353(1), 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994) (OCGA § 9–11–52(a) requires trial judge to ascertain facts and to state not only end result of that inquiry, but the process by which it was reached; mere recitation of trial events does not satisfy requirements of Code provision; bare statement of what court considered in reaching its conclusion is not a recitation of how those facts give support to or what constitutes the separate conclusions); Pruitt v. First Nat. Bank of Habersham County, 142 Ga.App. 100–101(1), 235 S.E.2d 617 (1977) (OCGA § 9–11–52(a) requires more than a paraphrase of statutory requirements and an ultimate conclusion; thus, when trial judge enters order with merely a dry recitation that certain legal requirements have been met, adequate appellate review of trial judge's decision making process is effectively prevented), superseded by statute as stated in Jerome Road, LLC v. First Citizens Bank and Trust Co., 312 Ga.App. 583, 584–585, 718 S.E.2d 913 (2011). Among his contentions on appea
See In the Interest of D. S., 212 Ga. App. 203, 204 ( 441 SE2d 412) (1994), overruled on other grounds, In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997).In the Interest of C. D. E., 248 Ga. App. 756, 766 (2) ( 546 SE2d 837) (2001); In the Interest of J. B., 241 Ga. App. 679, 680 (1) ( 527 SE2d 275) (1999); In the Interest of D. L. G, 212 Ga. App. 353 (1) ( 442 SE2d 11) (1994). See In the Interest of J. B., supra.
It is well-settled that, when ruling on deprivation petitions, findings of fact must be made in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-52 (a). In the Interest of D. L. G., 212 Ga. App. 353 (1) ( 442 S.E.2d 11) (1994). Findings of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory under OCGA § 9-11-52 (a).
We disagree. "Finding of fact and conclusions of law are mandatory under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-52 (a)." In the Interest of D.L.G., 212 Ga. App. 353 (1) ( 442 S.E.2d 11) (1994). The juvenile court's order sets forth the facts on which its conclusions are based — the 13 fractures of J.V.'s extremities — and thus complies with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-52.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) In re D.L.G. , 212 Ga. App. 353, 442 S.E.2d 11 (1994). See Moore v. Farmers Bank of Union Point , 182 Ga. App. 94, 95 (1), 354 S.E.2d 692 (1987), overruled on other grounds, Underwood v. Underwood , 282 Ga. 643, 651 S.E.2d 736 (2007) (noting that "the findings of fact and separate conclusions of law contained in the order" should "disclose to this court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue").