A Jefferson County Juvenile Court terminated the rights of the biological parents of R. J. and J. G. The court also denied the mother’s motion for new trial. In Case No. A10A1857, the mother challenges the denial of her motion for new trial and argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in its termination order. In Case No. A10A1858, the father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination and the juvenile court’s determination that the termination was in the best interests of the children. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we must determine whether, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgments, any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s rights to custody have been lost. This Court neither weighs evidence nor determines the credibility of witnesses; rather, we defer to the juvenile court’s factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met.1 So viewed, the record shows that the mother and father are step-siblings who began a romantic relationship prior to reaching the age of majority after the mother’s biological mother “grandmother” and father’s biological father “grandfather” were married. The mother gave birth to R. J. in 1999 when she was 17, and the parents moved to Georgia when the mother was 19, leaving R. J. in his grandmother’s care in South Carolina because the mother did not feel her situation in Georgia “was stable enough to take R. J. with” her. During this time, the mother gave birth to J. G. in March 2003. In May 2003, the grandmother died, and the parents traveled to South Carolina to retrieve R. J. from the grandfather, who initially refused to allow the parents to take the child, but later relinquished custody to them after the local police were involved. The mother stated that the father’s biological mother informed her that the grandfather had previously molested other individuals. At the time the parents returned with R. J. to Georgia, they claimed R. J. had been prescribed phenobarbital. The parents believed this was the result of an accidental head injury R. J. sustained while living with his grandfather. Upon returning to Georgia, the parents visited Dr. Ford to refill R. J.’s prescription; however, because R. J. was not covered by Medicaid and the father was covered, the parents testified that Dr. Ford prescribed the phenobarbital in the father’s name.
That June, the mother was at home alone with the children one evening when she administered R. J.’s dose of phenobarbital around 9:00 p.m. She stated that she went to the restroom, and when she returned, she claimed to have discovered R. J. with the medication bottle in his bedroom. She claimed that he took more of the medicine while she was out of the room, and he later exhibited drowsiness, slurred speech, and other symptoms, but she believed those were typical for the medication. The mother did not contact poison control or emergency services, but kept R. J. awake until the father returned from work approximately two hours after the event. Upon the father’s return from work approximately one and a half or two hours later, the mother told him what had happened, and he contacted an Ask-A-Nurse line, seeking information and advice on a course of treatment for the child. The father thereafter contacted emergency services. When help arrived at the home, R. J. was not responsive.
