## Facts

- The mother and her three children were living in a homeless shelter when the mother gave a children’s-services agency temporary custody so she could enter drug rehabilitation.
- The mother did not overcome her addiction and did not obtain stable housing, leaving the children without consistent parental care.
- The children’s father had been imprisoned almost continuously since the oldest child was born and had no meaningful contact with the children during his incarceration.
- The agency obtained a two-year temporary custody order for the children.
- During the temporary custody period, the agency developed a reunification plan with the mother.
- The agency did not establish a reunification plan with the father because he was moved between correctional facilities, making him difficult to locate and meet with.
- While the agency had custody, the father did not communicate with the children and did not provide financial support.
- The agency sought termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights, alleging the children were deprived of proper parental care and control.
- At trial, the father was serving a six-year sentence and admitted that his imprisonment harmed the children.
- The trial court found the children were deprived, that the deprivation was unlikely to be resolved in the future, and that termination of both parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported terminating the father’s parental rights for parental misconduct or inability when the father argued his imprisonment meant he should not be held responsible for the children’s deprivation.
2. Whether the termination proceeding satisfied constitutional requirements (including due process and equal protection) where the father had not received the same reunification opportunities as other parents during earlier custody proceedings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the order terminating the father’s parental rights.
- The court held the evidence authorized findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children were deprived, the father’s lack of care and control contributed to that deprivation, the deprivation was likely to continue, and continued deprivation was likely to harm the children.
- The court rejected the father’s constitutional challenges, concluding he received notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the termination proceeding and that the circumstances did not require identical reunification services for him while he was repeatedly transferred and remained unavailable.
- The court agreed that termination was in the children’s best interests given their need for a stable, permanent home and the unlikelihood that the father could provide proper care within a reasonable time.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires (1) clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability—commonly evaluated through deprivation, parental causation, likelihood of continued deprivation, and likely serious harm—and (2) a determination that termination serves the child’s best interests.
- A parent’s incarceration does not automatically require termination, but long-term incarceration, combined with failure to maintain contact and failure to provide support, may support findings that deprivation will continue and harm will result.
- Due process in a termination case is satisfied when the parent is served, is represented by counsel (if entitled), and is given an opportunity to participate and be heard in the proceeding that decides the parent’s rights.
- Equal protection does not require child welfare authorities to provide the same reunification services to every parent regardless of circumstances; a parent’s unavailability and repeated transfers in custody may explain why a reunification plan was not completed.
- On appeal, the termination judgment is upheld if a rational factfinder could have found the statutory grounds and best-interests determination proved by clear and convincing evidence.

## Conclusion

In the Interest of D.A.P. affirmed termination of a father’s parental rights where the children had remained in state custody after chronic parental instability, the father had been incarcerated for most of the children’s lives, and he provided neither support nor consistent contact; the court held incarceration did not bar a finding of parental misconduct or inability and concluded the father received constitutionally adequate process in the termination proceeding and that termination served the children’s need for permanency.


In the Interest of D.A.P., 234 Ga. App. 257, 506 S.E.2d 438 (1998)