In the Interest of S. M. W.

The father of S. M. W. appeals the termination of his parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.1 Specifically, he argues that the State failed to show that S. M. W.’s deprivation is likely to continue or that she would be harmed by a continuing relationship with him.2 Because we conclude that the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the cause of deprivation is likely to continue, we reverse. On appeal from a termination of parental rights, we defer to the juvenile court’s factfinding and do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses.3 Our role is to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parents’ rights to custody have been lost.”4 In applying this standard, we bear in mind that “there is no judicial ruling that has greater significance than one severing the parental bond.”5

Viewed in this manner, the record reflects that S. M. W., who was then four years old, entered the custody of the Department of Family and Children Services “DFCS” in June 2004 based on allegations of neglect and lack of supervision. At that time, the mother was incarcerated and the father was S. M. W.’s primary caregiver. The parents initially resided in Fulton County, but in 2005 they moved to Haralson County and came under the supervision of DFCS there.