The biological father of the minor female J. M. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying his petition to legitimate the child and terminating his parental rights.1 Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.On appeal of an order denying a petition to legitimate and terminating parental rights, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petition to legitimate should have been denied and that the parental rights should have been terminated. This Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, and we must defer to the juvenile court’s findings of fact if supported by the evidence.Citations and punctuation omitted. In the Interest of L. S. T. , 286 Ga. App. 638 649 SE2d 841 2007. Viewed in this light, the record shows that J. M. was born out-of-wedlock on April 15, 2002. At the time the mother became pregnant with J. M., appellant and the mother had been involved in an intimate relationship for a few months. When the mother was two or three months pregnant, appellant broke off his relationship with her after learning that she had an ongoing drug problem. After ending the relationship, appellant offered the mother no financial support or other assistance during the remainder of the pregnancy, and he was not present at the birth of J. M.
Initially, appellant denied that he was the father of J. M. and refused to provide the mother any financial support, although appellant conceded that he knew that the child “possibly” was his. When J. M. was three months old, the mother filed a petition for child support and to establish paternity. The paternity test proved that appellant was the biological father, and he was ordered to pay child support. As a result, appellant’s wages were garnished. After paternity was established and his wages garnished, appellant asked the mother if he could have visitation with J. M., who was then one year old. The mother agreed, but the few visitations that did occur were sporadic and several weeks apart due to animosity and tension between the mother and appellant, who had gotten married following his break up with the mother. After the fourth visit, the mother cut off the visitation altogether because J. M. came home with a bruise in the shape of a hand print on her buttocks. Appellant had no further contact with J. M. during the time the child lived with the mother.
