Dillard, Presiding Judge. Angelia Ferguson appeals the juvenile court’s temporary order adjudicating her six minor children dependent. Specifically, Ferguson argues—and the State agrees—the trial court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence the children were dependent due to the parents’ marijuana use, alleged abuse, and neglect. For the following reasons, we reverse. Viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment,[1] the record shows that this case concerns Ferguson’s six living children—K. M. (1 year old); W. B. (2 years old); R. B. (3 years old); F. B. (5 years old); T. B. (10 years old); and N. F. (11 years old). During the relevant time period, Ferguson was in a relationship with Terry Moore for two-and-a-half years, and they lived together with the children.[2] On August 20, 2022, Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) became involved with Ferguson’s family after J. M.— her and Moore’s two-month-old child—was found dead in their home.[3] Moore testified that he awoke around 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. because he heard J. M. crying, so he got up and fed him a bottle. Moore then placed J. M. in his “bouncer” chair, turned on a movie, and went back to sleep. At that point, J. M. was asleep and unsupervised. According to Moore, he placed the baby in the bouncer because he normally fell asleep and was comfortable in it; but Moore acknowledged that doing so was “a bad decision.” Later, when Moore awoke the next morning, he found J. M. unresponsive and called the police. Despite Ferguson’s attempts to perform CPR, J. M. did not survive. During the investigation that ensued, the DFCS investigator discovered that there had been two prior incidents of the agency being involved with the family. Specifically, before they moved to Georgia, one child was burned when an iron fell on her foot, and Ferguson immediately took her to the hospital. The children were not removed from the home due to this incident, and the case was ultimately closed. Additionally, in July 2022 (prior to his death), DFCS received a report that J. M. had a “grapefruit-sized bruise” on his abdomen. And when Ferguson was questioned about the injury, she claimed that her one year old, K. M., fell while walking near him and her head caused the bruise. Ferguson immediately took J. M. to the hospital after the accident occurred; and later, she had a pediatrician evaluate the injury. According to the DFCS investigator, there was no evidence the bruise was the result of “foul play,” and she agreed that “accidents happen with children every day.” Eventually, the case was closed and merged with the instant case. When questioned by a DFCS investigator, Ferguson admitted to smoking marijuana and testing positive for its use.[4] Nevertheless, according to the investigator, (1) Ferguson’s home was “very clean”; (2) there was adequate food with “[n]ecessities in the fridge and pantries”; and (3) the children had adequate bedding and clothes in their drawers. Additionally, the investigation revealed that Ferguson chose not to physically discipline the children, but instead, she “would just take things” away. The investigator did not believe Ferguson or Moore were “hiding anything or not being forthcoming with the information [she] requested from them.” Indeed, Ferguson was compliant with the DFCS investigator from the time she took on the case. Ferguson’s DFCS case manager testified that her cooperation had been “great,” and that Ferguson completed a parenting assessment and attended substance-abuse counseling as soon as she was told to do so. When asked what DFCS’s position was regarding the dependency of the children and need for care, the case manager stated only that they needed counseling. An officer who responded to the scene testified that after J. M. died, he was sent to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) for an autopsy. The autopsy did not reveal anything physical as causing the child’s death (such as a fractured skull or broken bones). And J. M. did not have bleeding in the brain or a retinal hemorrhage, which are indicative of a shaken baby. As a result, the cause of death was categorized as “undetermined.” So, at the time of the dependency hearing, the police department did not plan on arresting either Ferguson or Moore in connection with J. M.’s death. The responding officer also testified that, based on her investigation, she had no concerns about the safety or supervision of Ferguson’s other children. Lastly, when searching Ferguson’s home, the officer found a single “small little square bagg[y]” of marijuana. Turning to the instant proceedings, on August 22, 2022, two days after J. M.’s death, DFCS removed Ferguson’s remaining six children from her home, and the next day, DFCS filed a dependency petition as to each child. According to DFCS, its reasons for filing the petition were J. M.’s death and the two prior incidents requiring its involvement. But without providing specifics, DFCS summarily stated that “[d]ue to the information obtained and the ongoing investigation, the agency is asking for the children to be found dependent for their own safety.” Following a hearing on the matter at which the foregoing evidence was presented, the juvenile court granted the dependency petition and ordered the children be placed in DFCS custody temporarily pending receipt of a relative search report within 30 days of when they were first removed from the home. The court also ordered Ferguson and Moore be granted supervised visitation with the children at DFCS’s discretion. As for the reasons for its decision, the court found the children had been abused or neglected by Ferguson and were in need of protection. The court also noted that the children’s parents have been subject to three investigations into unexplained injuries to the children, including the death of an infant. Additionally, the court found it needed further “assessment of the parents’ parenting capacity and drug use.” This appeal by Ferguson follows. Ferguson’s sole argument is that the juvenile court erred in concluding that clear and convincing evidence showed that her children were dependent due to their parents’ marijuana use and alleged abuse and neglect. We agree, and significantly, so does the State. When analyzing an appeal from an order finding a child dependent, 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.”[5] And in making this determination, we do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses but instead “defer to the factual findings made by the juvenile court, bearing in mind that it must consider and protect the welfare of a child whose wellbeing is threatened,”[6] while also keeping in mind “its solemn obligation under both the federal and Georgia constitutions to—whenever possible—preserve the parent and child’s fundamental right to familial relations.”[7] Lastly, the party bringing the petition alleging dependency “carries the burden of proof, not the parent from whose custody the child will be removed.”[8] Importantly, even a temporary loss of custody is not authorized unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the dependency 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.”[9] As a result, only under “compelling circumstances that are found to exist by such clear and convincing proof may a court sever, even temporarily, the parentchild custodial relationship.”[10] This is, of course, because the fundamental right to the custody and control of one’s child is “a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law.”[11] And as our Supreme Court recently emphasized, the right of familial relations is “among the inherent rights that are derived from the law of nature.”[12] The record must contain, then, “evidence of present dependency, not merely past or potential future dependency.”[13] With this guiding analytical framework in mind, we turn to Ferguson’s specific claim of error. In this case, Ferguson claims the juvenile court’s dependency ruling was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that her children were subject to abuse or neglect. The State agrees with Ferguson, and so do we. Under OCGA § 15112 (22), a “dependent child” is defined, in relevant part, as a child who “[h]as been abused or neglected and is in need of the protection of the court . . . .” And suffice it to say, “parental unfitness” is essential to supporting an “adjudication of dependency.”[14] So, in making its determination as to dependency, a juvenile court “may consider evidence of past conduct, but the record must contain evidence of present dependency, not merely past or potential future dependency.”[15] And as with dependency determinations, “[p]roof of parental unfitness must . . . be by clear and convincing evidence.”[16] Importantly, this constitutionally mandated standard of review “safeguards the high value society places on the integrity of the family unit”[17]—i.e., the private realm of family life[18]—and “helps eliminate the risk that a factfinder might base his determination on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct or idiosyncratic behavior.”[19] In this regard, under OCGA § 15112 (2) (A), “abuse” means, in relevant part, “[a]ny nonaccidental physical injury or physical injury which is inconsistent with the explanation given for it suffered by a child as the result of the acts or omissions of a person responsible for the care of a child . . . .” And OCGA § 15112 (48) defines neglect as “[t]he failure to provide proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for a child’s physical, mental, or emotional health or morals; . . . [t]he failure to provide a child with adequate supervision necessary for such child’s wellbeing; or . . . [t]he abandonment of a child by his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian.”[20] Here, the juvenile court based its dependency ruling solely on (1) Ferguson and Moore’s marijuana use, which they admitted; (2) a prior incident in which a child “pulled an iron down on top of itself resulting in a minor injury;” (3) a large bruise being found on J. M.’s stomach shortly before he died; and (4) J. M.’s unexplained death. As to the drug use, there was no evidence it was excessive or had any adverse impact on the children.[21] And although Ferguson failed a drug test in late August, there was no evidence of present drug use because she was not tested again before the November 15 dependency hearing nearly three months later.[22] Furthermore, a DFCS case worker testified that Ferguson attended substance-abuse counseling as soon as she was asked to do so.[23] As a result, Ferguson’s marijuana use does not support the juvenile court’s dependency ruling.[24] Next, the trial court relied on two isolated incidents in which J. M. and another child were injured. But after both incidents, Ferguson immediately took the injured children to the hospital for treatment, and when a large bruise was discovered on J. M., she also had him evaluated by a pediatrician. Significantly, the DFCS investigator testified that there was no evidence J. M’s bruise was the result of “foul play,” and she agreed that “accidents happen with children every day.” Moreover, the juvenile court found the other injury was the result of the child pulling an iron down on herself, not that either parent intentionally used the iron to inflict what it described as a “minor injury.” Simply put, there was no evidence Ferguson inflicted either of these injuries on her children, and a DFCS case worker described her response to each incident as being entirely appropriate. There was, then, no evidence that these two injuries were the result of abuse or neglect. Lastly, the juvenile court relied on J. M.’s death as a basis for finding the other children dependent. But the autopsy revealed no physical injuries that could have caused J. M.’s death, there were no internal signs that he had been shaken, and the cause of death was categorized as undetermined. Furthermore, law enforcement did not arrest Ferguson or Moore in connection with J. M.’s death, and the responding officer testified that, based on her investigation, she had no concerns about the safety or supervision of the other children. Indeed, the officer did not believe the children were in any danger living with Ferguson and Moore. And although DFCS filed the dependency petition, the case manager testified that the agency’s sole position regarding the dependency of the children and need for care was that the parents needed counseling. Simply put, there was no testimony suggesting the children should be removed from Ferguson’s home due to safety concerns. Given the foregoing, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling, there was no evidence—much less clear and convincing evidence—that the children were dependent due to abuse or neglect, and the court erred in finding otherwise.[25] For all these reasons, the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding Ferguson’s children dependent.[26] Judgment reversed. Rickman and Pipkin, JJ., concur.
