In the Interest of J. V., 253 Ga. App. at 803. In the Interest of V. E. H., 262 Ga. App. 192, 197 (2) ( 585 SE2d 154) (2003), is physical precedent only and therefore not controlling. Furthermore, in this case, unlike in V. E. H., the mother resumed relations with the father after a juvenile court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that the father had abused the child. And she did not appeal that decision.

This enumeration is without merit. See generally In the Interest of V.E.H., 262 Ga. App. 192, 193 (1) ( 585 SE2d 154) (2003).Judgment affirmed.

See, e.g., In the Interest of V.E.H., 262 Ga. App. 192, 197 (2) ( 585 SE2d 154) (2003) (physical precedent only). Indeed, Melissa now lives in Florida, where she would like to take the children.

Compare In the Interest of A.A., 252 Ga. App. 167, 171-173 (1) (c) ( 555 SE2d 827) (2001) (relied on by Hitchcock). Compare In the Interest of V.E.H., 262 Ga. App. 192, 197 (2) ( 585 SE2d 154) (2003) (physical precedent only) and In the Interest of K.M., 240 Ga. App. 677, 680 ( 523 SE2d 640) (1999) (relied on by Hitchcock). 2. Hitchcock also contends that the court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were made by DFCS to reunify her with her children.

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition, we hold that any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parents' rights to custody of their child should have been terminated and the adoption granted.In the Interest of V.E.H., 262 Ga. App. 192, 197(2) ( 585 S.E.2d 154) (2003) (physical precedent only).In the Interest of C.D.A., 238 Ga. App. 400, 403(1) ( 519 S.E.2d 31) (1999).