Following the termination of her parental rights to M. L., D. W., T. S., and R. S., the natural mother of these children appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the mother’s failure to comply with the reunification case plan, to bond with the children, or to support the children authorized the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm.In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a termination of parental rights case, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s rights to custody have been lost. In making that determination, this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the lower court’s judgments and we neither weigh evidence nor determine 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 R. S. 1 So viewed, the evidence shows that in September 2004, then nine-month-old D. W. was taken into DFACS custody based on the deprivation finding consented to by the child’s mother that the mother, who was unmarried, had left D. W. in a Cobb County home without power, food, or furniture, while she performed exotic dances over the weekend in Las Vegas, Nevada. Four months later in January 2005, the mother’s other two children three-year-old R. S. and two-year-old T. S. were also taken into DFACS custody based on the deprivation finding again consented to by the mother that the mother, who was now homeless, had left the children unsupervised, during which time one of the children had ingested chemicals from a microscope kit.
In January 2006, the mother stipulated in a continuing custody order that the conditions of deprivation continued to exist, particularly since she had not complied with the reunification case plan to obtain stable housing or employment. When the mother gave birth to M. L. in December 2006, DFACS obtained an emergency deprivation order placing the new baby in its custody based on the mother’s continued noncompliance with the case plan and on her choice to live with an abusive boyfriend.
