Following a juvenile court’s finding that 12-year-old W. L. H. was deprived by the lack of care provided by his legal guardians, W. L. H. has appealed with the assistance of his court-appointed trial counsel. But neither his legal guardians nor his guardian ad litem have appealed. Among other things, the child contends the juvenile court erred by ruling that he was not a party to the proceedings below and, consequently, erred by denying him access to the proceedings. He has withdrawn his only enumeration of error attacking the merits of the juvenile court’s decision. As of August 2010, the child had been in the custody of his legal guardians —first cousin Marian “Kathy” Helsinger and her husband John Helsinger referred to herein as the “parents” —since he was about 17 months old. His natural father is deceased and his natural mother’s whereabouts were unknown when the Walton County Department of Family and Children Services DFACS filed a complaint alleging the child did not have proper care. On August 9, 2010, the juvenile court entered a shelter care order based on information that the child needed protection because Mrs. Helsinger admitted that she had struck the child and left bruises even though a safety plan based on prior allegations of physical abuse was in effect that prohibited physical discipline. On the same day, the court appointed a “Guardian Ad Litem/CASA”1 for the child pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-9, and the guardian attended the 72-hour hearing on August 11. On August 16, DFACS filed a petition alleging deprivation based on physical abuse. On September 9, DFACS entered a case plan for the parents. On September 15, 2010, the court appointed an attorney to represent the child as his counsel. The CASA submitted monthly recommendations on the matter in September and October, and the court set a hearing for October 21, 2010.
The court held the first day of the hearing on October 21 and a second session on November 29. On the first day, the child’s counsel, the parents’ counsel, and the court engaged in colloquy about whether the twelve-year-old child should be considered a party to the proceedings and whether he had a right to be present for the proceedings. The court eventually decided that the child would remain out of the courtroom for all of the evidence. The court also ruled that he would hear what the child had to say in chambers and that the other parties could question the child in the presence of his attorney. The child’s attorney objected to excluding the child from the proceedings but did not object to the in-chambers testimony. Just prior to the second day of the hearing, the child filed a motion to allow him access to the proceedings. In the motion, the child asserted that failure to allow him to be an active participant in the matter denied him his due process rights under the Georgia and Federal Constitutions. The court denied the motion and excluded the child from the second day of the hearing, as well.
