Linda Pearson, J. R. P.’s maternal grandmother, appeals a juvenile court order finding J. R. P. deprived. For reasons that follow, we affirm. This case involves a private deprivation petition and custody battle over J. R. P. between Pearson and Tameka Brown, J. R. P.’s cousin. The record shows that J. R. P.’s mother died shortly after his birth, and Pearson began caring for him. Pearson, however, never obtained legal custody or guardianship of J. R. P., and his putative father did not legitimate him, leaving J. R. P. with no legal custodian or guardian. When J. R. P. was two years old, Brown filed a deprivation petition asserting, among other things, that he lacked a legal custodian. Brown and her husband also sought custody of him. Because no one had legal custody or guardianship of J. R. P., the juvenile court found him deprived.1 It subsequently awarded temporary guardianship and custody to the Browns, pending resolution of the permanent custody issues.
In January 2005, the juvenile court held a hearing on the Brown’s custody petition, at which numerous witnesses, including Pearson and the Browns, testified. Following the hearing, the juvenile court awarded the Browns permanent custody of J. R. P. Thereafter, Tameka Brown moved to dismiss her deprivation petition, asserting that because she and her husband had permanent custody of J. R. P., he no longer lacked a legal custodian, rendering the deprivation action moot. The juvenile court agreed and dismissed the petition.
