Mariano and Guadalupe Azua, the paternal grandparents of D. T. A. and K. F. A., petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the children’s mother and father.1 The juvenile court granted the termination petition, and in a prior appeal, we granted the mother’s petition for discretionary review of that decision. In that appeal, this Court found that the evidence was sufficient as to three of the four requirements set forth in OCGA § 15-11-94 b 4 A for finding the parental inability or misconduct necessary to terminate parental rights, but determined that as to the fourth requirement, i. e., that the children faced a likelihood of serious harm from continued deprivation, the juvenile court failed to make the requisite findings of fact. The Court accordingly vacated the juvenile court’s decision and remanded the case to the juvenile court to make additional findings of fact as to that fourth factor. In the Interest of D. T. A., 312 Ga. App. 26, 34 1 717 SE2d 536 2011. The juvenile court subsequently issued an “Order Following Remand With Direction,” making specific findings of fact to support its determination that the children’s continued deprivation is likely to cause serious harm to the children. We once again granted the mother’s petition for discretionary review of the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights, and this appeal ensued.
In addressing this appeal, we rely upon the factual recitation set out in the prior appeal. In the Interest of D. T. A., 312 Ga. App. at 26-31. And as in the prior appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling, see In the Interest of T. J. J., 258 Ga. App. 312, 314 574 SE2d 387 2002, and we limit our review “to addressing the question of whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s rights should have been terminated.” Citations omitted. In the Interest of A. C., 285 Ga. 829, 836 3 686 SE2d 635 2009. Moreover, we “must necessarily defer to the juvenile court’s fact finding, weighing of the evidence, and credibility determinations.” Citations omitted. Id. See also In the Interest of C. M., 251 Ga. App. 374 554 SE2d 510 2001.
