In the Interest of T. A.

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Interest of S. D. H

    652 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times

    OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (B) (i). A finding of deprivation is authorized where there is evidence that the parent has been diagnosed with a mental illness, and where the parent's behavior and/or symptoms as a result of the illness reflect that he or she cannot adequately and safely care for the child. See In the Interest of E. G., 284 Ga. App. 524, 528-529 (1) (b) ( 644 SE2d 339) (2007); In the Interest of D. A. B., 281 Ga. App. 702, 703-704 (1) (b) ( 637 SE2d 102) (2006); In the Interest of H. E. M. O., 281 Ga. App. 281, 285 (1) (b) ( 636 SE2d 47) (2006); In the Interest of T. A., 279 Ga. App. 377, 379-380 ( 631 SE2d 399) (2006). Here, the mother was diagnosed with major depression and borderline personality disorder and exhibited severe anger management problems.

  2. In the Interest of D. A. B

    637 S.E.2d 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    Based on the foregoing, including evidence of the mother's mental illness, her recurring use of illegal drugs, her failure to consistently take her prescribed medication and the debilitating effect of her failure to properly medicate, the juvenile court was entitled to conclude that lack of proper parental care and control was the cause of D. A. B.'s deprivation. See In the Interest of T.A., 279 Ga. App. 377, 379-380 ( 631 SE2d 399) (2006) (lack of parental care shown where, among other things, mother was diagnosed as mentally ill and failed to take her medication as prescribed); In the Interest of C. G., 279 Ga. App. 730, 732 (1) ( 632 SE2d 472) (2006) (mother's chronic drug abuse rendered her incapable of providing for the needs of her children, and this lack of proper parental care or control was cause of her children's deprivation). (c) Cause of Deprivation Likely to Continue.

  3. Dupuy v. Samuels

    465 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 70 times
    Finding violation for Rule 65(d) did not deprive appellate court of jurisdiction unless would-be injunction was so unclear defendant could not be punished for violating it

    The fact that the safety-plan option is a boon to parents may explain why, though similar options are offered by other states, see, e.g., In re T.A., 279 Ga.App. 377, 631 S.E.2d 399, 400 (Ga.App. 2006); In re M.G.T.-B, 629 S.E.2d 916, 917-19 (N.C.App. 2006), lawsuits challenging them have been rare — indeed this is the first we've found. A safety plan seems a sensible, perhaps indeed an unavoidable, partial solution to the agonizingly difficult problem of balancing the right of parents to the custody and control of their children with the children's right to be protected against abuse and neglect.