The mother of a four-year-old boy, J. H., appeals from a juvenile court order finding the child to be deprived. The mother contends that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of deprivation, and she argues that the juvenile court erred by finding that the Department of Family and Children Services “the Department” made reasonable efforts to support the mother and by failing to make a finding of whether the mother’s conduct or unfitness resulted in the abuse or neglect of J. H. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. A deprived child is one who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health or morals. In determining whether a child is deprived, the court focuses on the needs of the child rather than parental fault. And a temporary loss of custody is not authorized unless the deprivation resulted from unfitness on the part of the parent, that is, either intentional or unintentional misconduct resulting in the abuse or neglect of the child or by what is tantamount to physical or mental incapability to care for the child. On appeal from a finding of deprivation, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived and whether, under the circumstances, the court properly awarded temporary custody of the child.1 So viewed, the record shows that in September 2007, the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services became involved with the mother and J. H., who was born in March 2007.2 The Department provided services to the mother in the form of counseling and parent aides. On August 13, 2009, the Department filed a petition, alleging that a parental fitness evaluation performed on the mother on July 7, 2009, concluded that she should not “independently maintain custody of J. H. regardless of the services being provided in the home.” The only document in the record that supports this allegation, however, is a psychological and parental fitness evaluation that was performed when J. H. was eight months old, presumably before he was returned to the mother. In its 72-hour-hearing order, the juvenile court found that the mother had not been compliant with the Department with regard to the services provided to assist her to improve her parenting skills. On September 4, 2009, the Department filed a deprivation petition, contending that the mother had cognitive limitations that affected her ability to adequately parent, and she did not comply with the parent aide and counselor provided to her because she did not believe that she needed assistance with parenting J. H. The case plan cited neglect and inadequate housing as the reasons J. H. was placed in Department custody.
The juvenile court conducted a detention hearing on August 31, 2009, which was continued to January 26, 2010. A case worker testified that the Department had been involved with the mother and J. H. since September 2007. The case worker stated that from June 2009 to August 2009, she conducted at least six visits to the mother’s residence, observing dirty dishes in the sink, dirty carpet, lack of fruits or vegetables in the residence, J. H. wearing only a diaper both inside and outside of the residence, and the mother spank J. H. twice. There was no testimony presented by the case worker, however, that J. H. sustained any physical injury from the spanking, that there was any medical evidence of injury to J. H., or that J. H. was harmed when he was clothed only in a diaper. Moreover, the case worker testified that there was always food in the residence, although the food consisted of meats and convenience foods, which she characterized as “adequate.” A family counselor testified that her observations of the mother’s interactions with J. H. had “been appropriate.”
