In re C. L. W.

359 Ga.App. 484

858 S.E.2d 767

In the INTEREST OF C. L. W., a Child.

A21A0616

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 18, 2021

Frank M. Starosto, for Appellant.

Christopher Michael Carr, Penny Hannah, Shalen S. Nelson, Atlanta, Anais Lopez Brown, Anna M. Johnson, for Appellee.

Miller, Presiding Judge.

Larry Waller, the uncle of minor child C. L. W., appeals from the trial court's order granting the guardian ad litem's ("GAL") motion to modify disposition and awarding temporary custody of C. L. W. to his foster parents, Thomas and Bridgett Ballard. Waller contends that the trial court erred in granting the GAL's motion to modify disposition because the GAL lacks standing to file such a motion. We conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that the GAL has standing because (1) the GAL has an interest in the child under OCGA § 15-11-32 (e) ; and (2) the GAL is also C. L. W.’s attorney, authorizing her to file the motion on C. L. W.’s behalf. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.

Because this case presents a question of law, our review is de novo. See In the Interest of R. D. , 346 Ga. App. 257, 262 (2), 816 S.E.2d 132 (2018).

The record shows that, pursuant to a 2012 adjudication order, Waller and his then-wife had custody of C. L. W. and his older brother, who is not a subject of this appeal. In August 2018, C. L. W.’s brother was taken for medical care, and he had significant marks on his back which he said was the result of physical discipline by Waller's wife. In addition, C. L. W. reported that he, too, had been physically disciplined. The children were removed from Waller's home and placed in the custody of the Bartow County Department of Family and Children Services. The juvenile court found C. L. W. dependent because of Waller's failure to protect C. L. W. from physical abuse. C. L. W. was placed in foster care with the Ballard family. Anna Johnson, an attorney, was appointed both as C. L. W.’s attorney and GAL.¹

The initial permanency plan called for reunification of C. L. W. with Waller following Waller's successful completion of case plan objectives. These objectives included completing a psychological evaluation, maintaining stable income and housing, completing parenting classes, and ensuring that Waller's wife had no contact with C. L. W.

In April 2020, the GAL filed a motion to modify the disposition of the dependency action to grant the Ballards custody of C. L. W. The GAL asserted that Waller had made minimal progress on his case plan, especially as to parenting skills. The GAL noted that, while Waller had custody of C. L. W.’s older brother, the brother had tested positive for methamphetamine and numerous other drugs and that Waller had not taken him for court-ordered evaluations. The GAL contended that, as demonstrated by his parenting of the older child, Waller would not be able to meet C. L. W.’s significant educational and therapeutic needs. According to the GAL, C. L. W.’s educational, intellectual, and permanency needs would be best served by him being placed in the care of the Ballards. In response, Waller filed a motion to quash the GAL's motion to modify disposition on the grounds that the GAL lacked standing to file the motion.

In July 2020, the juvenile court entered an order amending disposition. In its order, the juvenile court concluded that the GAL had standing to file the motion to modify and that the filing of the motion was consistent with the role of an attorney GAL. The court also found that, although Waller generally cooperated with the case plan as to C. L. W., he had failed to demonstrate that he would be able to assist C. L. W. in overcoming his significant educational deficiencies. Thus, the juvenile court ordered that C. L. W. be placed in the temporary custody of the Ballards and established a new permanency plan of adoption or permanent guardianship for the Ballards. This appeal followed.

In his sole enumeration of error, Waller argues that the trial court erred in granting the GAL's motion to modify disposition because the GAL lacked standing to file the motion. We conclude that the GAL was authorized to file the motion as both a person having an interest in C. L. W. and as his attorney.

To begin our analysis, we are mindful that the General Assembly has provided that the Juvenile Code "shall be liberally construed to reflect that the paramount child welfare policy of this state is to determine and ensure the best interests of its children." OCGA § 15-11-1 ; see In the Interest of R. M., 329 Ga. App. 725, 728-729 (1), 766 S.E.2d 126 (2014).

OCGA § 15-11-32(e), which governs a juvenile court's modification of orders, lists three categories of persons who may petition the court to modify an order: (1) any party to the proceeding; (2) any probation officer; or (3) any other person having supervision or legal custody of or an interest in the child. We conclude that a GAL has "an interest in the child" as contemplated by OCGA § 15-11-32 (e). In reaching this conclusion, we note...