A juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and putative fathers as to the children Z. H., and M. H.1 The mother appeals the juvenile court’s order contending that her failure to comply with the case plan was justifiable, the State did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the deprivation was likely to continue or cause harm, and that DFACS had failed to pursue alternatives to the termination. We find no error and therefore affirm. “On appeal from a termination order, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the biological parent’s rights to custody have been lost.” Footnote omitted. In the Interest of F. C. , 248 Ga. App. 675 549 SE2d 125 2001. A juvenile court’s termination of parental rights is a two-step process: The first step requires a finding of parental misconduct or inability, which requires clear and convincing evidence that: 1 the child is deprived; 2 lack of proper parental care or control is the cause of the deprivation; 3 such cause of deprivation is likely to continue; and 4 the continued deprivation will cause or is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child. If these four factors are satisfied, the court must then determine whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest, considering physical, mental, emotional, and moral condition and needs, including the need for a secure and stable home. Footnotes omitted. In the Interest of T. F. , 250 Ga. App. 96, 98 1 550 SE2d 473 2001. See OCGA § 15-11-94 a, b 4 A i-iv.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment, the record shows that the Carroll County Department of Family and Children Services “DFACS” first became involved with the children after receiving information that they were living in unfit conditions. It is not clear from the record when this investigation was initiated. The mother entered into a safety plan with DFACS. On September 12, 2003, during a home visit, DFACS discovered that the mother had been arrested for prescription drug fraud, and the children were living with M. H.’s paternal grandmother, an alleged methamphetamine dealer. DFACS filed a deprivation complaint, and the juvenile court subsequently entered a shelter care order for the children. Following a seventy-two hour hearing, the court found probable cause of deprivation because the parents “have subjected the children to illegal drug activity, violated the safety plan with the Department, were arrested. . ., and left the minor children in the care of a known drug addict and dealer,” and granted DFACS temporary custody. DFACS filed a deprivation petition alleging that the children were in need of protection because they had been found living in unfit conditions “and the electricity in the home had just been reconnected,” the mother signed a safety plan but did not comply with it, the mother was arrested, and the mother had allowed the children to live with a drug abuser and dealer. Following a hearing in October 2003, the court returned custody of the children to DFACS, but placed the mother under a protective order that required her to submit to random drug screenings, obtain a psychological evaluation and counseling, stabilize her work and home situation, and obtain a valid ID card.
