The Juvenile Court of Brooks County terminated the parental rights of the mother of four-year-old A. G. and three-year-old K.G.1 She appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s order. For the following reasons, we affirm.A termination of parental rights case involves a two-step analysis. First, there must be a finding of parental misconduct or inability, which requires clear and convincing evidence that: 1 the child is deprived; 2 the lack of proper parental care or control is the cause of the deprivation; 3 the cause of the deprivation is likely to continue; and 4 continued deprivation is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. OCGA § 15-11-94 b 4 A i-iv. If these four factors exist, then the court must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child, considering the child’s physical, mental, emotional, and moral condition and needs, including the need for a secure, stable home. OCGA § 15-11-94 a. In reviewing a juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent’s rights to custody should be terminated. In so doing, we do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses; rather, we defer to the juvenile court’s factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met.Footnotes omitted. In the Interest of T. L. , 279 Ga. App. 7, 10 630 SE2d 154 2006. Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that, in February 2004, the Brooks County Department of Family and Children Services “DFACS” removed six-month-old A. G. from her mother’s home based upon “deplorable” unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the home and the mother’s on-going failure to correct the problems, even though DFACS had been providing assistance to the mother. At the time, the mother was 17 years old, unmarried, had dropped out of school at age 15 or 16 because she was pregnant, had only achieved a sixth grade education, did not have a driver’s license or a car, and had no job or job training. She was living with her mother and sister, and there was a lot of hostility and fighting among the family members, which sometimes required police intervention. Following the deprivation hearing, the juvenile court found that the mother was indifferent, uncooperative, and unwilling to make an attempt to improve her situation, and that there was extreme conflict in the home between the mother and her family members. The court adjudicated A. G. as deprived and placed her in the temporary custody of DFACS for one year; the mother did not appeal that order. DFACS established a reunification plan which required the mother to complete parenting and anger management classes, work with a parent aide, complete random drug tests and substance abuse assessment, find and maintain employment and appropriate housing, provide adequate child care, and obtain her GED. DFACS continued to provide a range of services to the mother, including in-home therapy, employment assistance, GED and anger management classes, parenting classes, help with visitation and transportation, and referrals for income assistance and food stamps, among other services.
In November 2004, the court entered an order removing the mother’s one-month-old son, K. G., from her home. The court found that the mother had no income, was not cooperating with DFACS, and was not complying with the reunification plan regarding A. G. The court subsequently entered a temporary custody order giving DFACS custody of K. G. In the order, the court found that the mother “is not making any attempt to seek an independent life for her and her child” and “nothing has changed since the Court’s earlier removal of A. G.,” nine months earlier. The mother did not appeal the order.
