The mother of A. J. I. and S. I. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders finding A. J. I. and S. I. to be deprived children and placing them in the temporary custody of the Franklin County Department of Family and Children Services. The mother contends that the findings of deprivation were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We agree and reverse. Under OCGA § 15-11-2 8 A, a deprived child is one who is “without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health or morals.” That definition focuses upon the needs of the child regardless of parental fault. . . .To authorize even a loss of temporary custody by a child’s parents, on the basis of deprivation, the deprivation must be shown to have resulted from unfitness on the part of the parent, that is, either intentional or unintentional misconduct resulting in the abuse or neglect of the child or by what is tantamount to physical or mental incapability to care for the child. On appeal from a determination that a child is deprived, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived. Parental unfitness must also be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This standard of review safeguards the high value society places on the integrity of the family unit and helps eliminate the risk that a factfinder might base his determination on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct or idiosyncratic behavior. Only under a compelling circumstances found to exist by clear and convincing proof may a court sever the parent-child custodial relationship. Citations, punctuation and indention omitted. In the Interest of S. J. , 270 Ga. App. 598, 599 607 SE2d 225 2004.
Although there is a paucity of evidence concerning the events surrounding DFACS initial involvement with this family, it appears that DFACS first took custody of the children in late 2004, and then returned custody to the mother in January 2005. Apparently the children were returned to the mother under the terms of a protective order, but that order does not appear in the record.
