Doyle, Presiding Judge.The mother of minor children R. D. (born March 12, 2015), L. D. (born January 30, 2009), K. D. (born April 10, 2007), and T. D. (born August 2, 2004), appeals from a juvenile court order finding the children dependent. She contends that the juvenile court erred (1) because the evidence did not show that any dependency was caused by the mother, and (2) by allowing the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) to make objections and participate in crossexamination. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The record shows that the mother’s involvement with the Department of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”)[1] began in 2010, to address the mother’s unreasonable and excessive physical discipline of her three children born at that time. . In 2012, the three children were temporarily removed from the home due to physical abuse by the parents, and after the parents completed their case plan, the children were returned to the home less than a year later. In 2014, while the parents were the legal guardians of three additional children (nieces of the mother), DFCS again became involved with the family after two-year-old niece J. W. received burns when the father placed her on a hot stove after ingesting Ambien while he was alone with the children. The father was later indicted for aggravated battery because of the burning and because the child allegedly tested positive for GHB, a central nervous system depressant also known as a “date rape drug.”[2] J. W. also exhibited bruises on her abdomen, chest, ear, and thigh, as well as scratches on her back and lacerations on the inside of her lip; she also presented with high liver enzymes, which was not associated with any toxic substance or virus, but which can result from physical trauma. The mother stated that the children injured each other, and the parents were unable to control them. Based on these facts and the parents’ inability to supervise and care for the other children, the juvenile court entered a temporary disposition finding that children were dependent and temporarily placed into foster care.In February 2015, after a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order nunc pro tunc November 2014 adjudicating the children dependent. At that time, T. D., then ten years old, had entered a residential psychiatric treatment facility based on aggressive behavior and visual and auditory hallucinations, and she had made an outcry of sexual abuse by the father that coincided with the onset of her hallucinations. The juvenile court ordered that custody remain with DFCS based on recommendations by the case manager, the parents’ lack of progress on their reunification case plan, and incomplete counseling and psychological fitness evaluation of the parents. After further proceedings with DFCS, in August 2015, the juvenile court entered an order nunc pro tunc July 2015 returning K. D., L. D., and R. D., to the custody of their parents. The order included a protective provision requiring the parents to participate in therapy with the children as well as individually, allow access to the children in the home, and cooperate with DFCS. Due to continued mental health concerns, T. D. remained in custody of DFCS residing at the psychiatric treatment center.In August 2016, the juvenile court entered a removal order as to all four children after DFCS received four reports of recent physical abuse. The next month, DFCS filed dependency petitions as to the children, and in March 2017, the juvenile court held an evidentiary adjudication hearing with both parents present. Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order finding the children dependent and requiring a permanency hearing within nine months. The mother filed this appeal.1. The mother contends that there was insufficient clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that she caused any dependency. We disagree. [O]n appeal from an order finding a child to be a dependent child, we review the juvenile court’s finding of dependency in the light most favorable to the lower court’s judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child is dependent. In making this determination we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, but instead defer to the factual findings made by the juvenile court, bearing in mind that “[t]he juvenile court’s primary responsibility is to consider and protect the welfare of a child whose wellbeing is threatened.”[3]
