The Georgia Court of Appeals has sided with the juvenile court in a complex case involving a medically fragile child, H.J. The court dismissed appeals from both parents, upholding the juvenile court’s decision that H.J. is a dependent child due to parental unfitness. The case highlights the legal standards for determining dependency, especially when a child has significant medical needs.
The ruling, issued on October 31, 2025, stems from dependency proceedings initiated after H.J., born prematurely in December 2023, required continuous hospitalization since birth. The court addressed four companion appeals filed by the parents.
Background of the Case
H.J. was born at just 23 weeks gestation and weighed only a pound. Due to his extreme prematurity, he has been hospitalized since birth. The Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) became involved after hospital staff reported concerns about the parents’ ability to provide care, particularly their failure to be reached for critical medical decisions.
The parents had a history of substance abuse and instability. The mother tested positive for amphetamines at the time of H.J.’s birth, and H.J. tested positive for both amphetamines and methamphetamines. Additionally, H.J.’s siblings had previously been removed from the parents’ home due to similar issues.
DFCS filed a dependency complaint, and the juvenile court issued an ex parte removal order, placing H.J. in temporary legal custody. A preliminary protective hearing (PPH) was held, where the court found probable cause for dependency based on prenatal drug exposure, lack of prenatal care, minimal visitation, and the prior sibling case.
The Appeals and the Court’s Decision
The parents appealed various aspects of the juvenile court’s decisions. The father and mother appealed the finding of probable cause at the PPH. The mother also appealed the initial ex parte removal order. The court dismissed these appeals (Cases No. A25A0879 and A25A1106) as moot, because a subsequent dependency adjudication had taken place.
In the other two cases (A25A2149 and A25A2162), the father and mother appealed the dependency adjudication order itself, and the mother also challenged the denial of her motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s rulings in these cases.
Key Issues and the Court’s Reasoning
The court’s decision focused on several key issues:
* Dependency Definition: The court emphasized that a “dependent child” is one who has been abused or neglected and needs the court’s protection, or who is without proper parental care. The court also clarified that “abuse” includes prenatal abuse, such as exposure to illegal substances that appear in the newborn’s system. “Neglect” involves the failure to provide necessary parental care for a child’s health or safety.
* Parental Unfitness: The court found clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness. This was based on the mother’s prenatal drug use, the parents’ admitted drug possession convictions, their failure to complete required substance abuse treatment, their minimal visitation with H.J., and their failure to participate in the necessary medical training.
* Focus on Parental Conduct: The court stressed that the focus of the dependency inquiry is on the parents’ fitness and conduct, not the child’s temporary location or the quality of care provided by a third party. The court specifically noted that H.J.’s well-being was threatened because his parents failed to engage in his care and development.
* Motions to Dismiss: The mother argued that the juvenile court erred by denying her motions to dismiss. One of her motions was oral, which the court rejected because it was not in the proper written form as required by the rules. The second written motion argued that a power of attorney she gave to H.J.’s maternal grandmother resolved the dependency issue. The court rejected this argument, stating that the power of attorney addressed only medical consent, not the broader issues of parental unfitness.
* Need for Continued Removal: The mother argued that removal was unnecessary since H.J. was already in the hospital. The court disagreed, stating that the parents’ inability to provide the specialized care H.J. needed meant he would be dependent if returned to their care. The court also found that DFCS had made reasonable efforts to consider alternatives to removal.
Impact of the Ruling
The Court of Appeals’ decision reinforces the juvenile court’s determination that H.J. is a dependent child and that the parents are currently unable to provide the necessary care. This means that the child will remain under the legal custody of DFCS and the parents will have to work with the agency to regain custody. The ruling sends a clear message about the importance of parental responsibility and engagement, especially when a child has significant medical needs.