The mother of 6-year-old D. H., 3-year-old E. H., and 2-year-old J. H. appeals from a juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights.1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination; she also claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the court erred in failing to give her adequate time to complete her case plan. For reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. The mother argues that the evidence presented by the Department of Family and Children Services “DFACS” was insufficient to support termination of her parental rights. On appeal from a termination order, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to DFACS and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the biological parent’s rights to custody have been lost. We do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but defer to the trial court’s factfinding and affirm unless the evidence fails to satisfy the appellate standard of review.Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted. In the Interest of T. W. O. , 283 Ga. App. 771 643 SE2d 255 2007.
So viewed, the evidence revealed the mother had been placed in DFACS care due to neglect in June 2000 when she was 14 years old. On September 30, 2001, while the mother was still in DFACS care, she gave birth to D. H. The child was subsequently placed in DFACS custody, and on November 7, 2001, the juvenile court found him to be deprived. The mother did not appeal this order. DFACS developed a reunification plan for the mother which required her to attend and complete parenting classes, cooperate with her placement resource, provide for D. H.’s daily care, wear a hearing aid on a consistent basis, and follow up with D. H.’s medical needs. In February 2002, DFACS filed a second deprivation petition, alleging that the mother was unable to provide for D. H.’s needs and supervision. On May 27, 2003, the juvenile court again found D. H. to be deprived. The mother also did not appeal this order. On May 4, 2004, in response to DFACS’s motion to extend custody, the juvenile court found that D. H. continued to be deprived because the mother failed to remain in school and failed to remain in the DFACS placements. The court found further that the mother had been placed in the same home with D. H., but that she had “disrupted” the placement. The mother did not appeal this order.
