See In the Interest of L. P. , 339 Ga. App. 651, 655 (1), 794 S.E.2d 252 (2016) ("[D]espite the [parent’s] claim of newfound personal reform, which is for the juvenile court to weigh, the evidence in the record was clear and convincing to support the juvenile court’s finding that the mother had continued her pattern of drug use ... and had not been successful in completing a drug treatment program."); In the Interest of M. D. N. , 289 Ga. App. 499, 505 (1), 657 S.E.2d 594 (2008) ("The decision as to a child’s future must rest on more than positive promises which are contrary to negative past fact." (punctuation omitted)).
Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) In the Interest ofM. D. N., 289 Ga. App. 499, 503 (1) ( 657 SE2d 594) (2008). In this case, the father only attended three of sixteen scheduled visits with the children, and his whereabouts were not even known to DFACS until November 2006, six months after the children came into DFACS care. The evidence showed further that the father intentionally evaded communication with DFACS concerning the children so that only the mother was responsible for working on a case plan and because he thought he had warrants out for his arrest.
In the Interest of M. C. L., 251 Ga. App. 132, 134 (1) (a) ( 553 SE2d 647) (2001). Accord In the Interest of M. D. N., 289 Ga. App. 499, 503 (1) ( 657 SE2d 594) (2008).In the Interest of J. F., 283 Ga. App. 759, 765-766 (c) ( 642 SE2d 434) (2007).