The father of Z. D. and J. D. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an order of the DeKalb County Juvenile Court finding his children deprived, as defined in OCGA § 15-11-2 8. Because the juvenile court’s ruling was supported by clear and convincing evidence of deprivation, we affirm. We review a trial court’s finding of deprivation in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived. This Court neither weighs evidence nor determines the credibility of witnesses; rather, we defer to the trial court’s fact-finding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met. Citation and punctuation omitted. In the Interest of B. M. B. , 241 Ga. App. 609 527 SE2d 250 1999. So viewed, the record reveals the following evidence. On December 5, 2007, the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services filed in the juvenile court a complaint seeking protective care, alleging that six-year-old J. D. and seven-year-old Z. D. were deprived.1 The complaint alleged that J. D. had received a “black eye” from her father, that her father had prevented her from attending school, and that the father denied the Department’s caseworker access to the home or children to investigate the allegations. On December 6, 2007, the court ordered the children placed in protective custody. On December 21, 2007, the Department filed a deprivation petition alleging deprivation as defined in OCGA § 15-11-2 8 The Department alleged that J. D.’s father had given her a black eye, kept her out of school, and had thwarted a caseworker’s efforts to investigate. It also alleged that the father had been directed pursuant to a “Brief Intervention for Families” recommendation to seek medical attention for Z. D., who exhibited extreme hunger at school. The petition alleged that both children were forbidden from eating school cafeteria food and were punished if they disobeyed. On January 3, 2008, the Department prepared a reunification case plan for the father which required him to complete a psychological assessment, maintain stable housing and income, demonstrate that he was providing adequate meals for the children, and to use non-harmful methods of discipline. While in protective custody, Z. D. and J. D. were evaluated by a physician, who found no evidence of malnutrition. The physician recommended further testing for parasites and brain abnormalities given that both children had a history of “hyperphagia excessive hunger of unclear etiology.”
On February 28 and 29, 2008, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing on the deprivation petition. The father was present and represented by counsel. With respect to Z. D. the Department adduced evidence that the child had a history of unresolved bed-wetting and urinating on herself and the floor The child was punished for these incident by either having to sit on the toilet for prolonged periods of time or being made to sit in cold bath water. The father explained that Z. D.’s wetting behavior was the result of her being too lazy to get up and go to the bathroom.
