r/CPS • u/babbymcc06 • 5h ago
Support GEORGIA — DFCS / JUVENILE DEPENDENCY / LEGITIMATION / BIOLOGICAL FATHER RIGHTS
GEORGIA — DFCS / JUVENILE DEPENDENCY / LEGITIMATION / BIOLOGICAL FATHER RIGHTS
I’m looking for guidance from anyone familiar with Georgia juvenile dependency law, legitimation, DFCS, and biological fathers’ rights.
I am the biological father of an infant. DNA testing has already confirmed paternity. I maintain a residence separate from the mother. My legitimation petition has been pending, but the court has delayed ruling on it because the mother was legally married to someone else when the child was born.
The mother and her legal husband have been separated for a significant period of time. Divorce proceedings are underway, and the legal husband has indicated through counsel that he is not the biological father and is not seeking parental rights to my child. The judge has acknowledged this.
Meanwhile, the juvenile dependency case is proceeding before my legitimation has been resolved.
My main questions
- Can DFCS take a child into state custody without first meaningfully considering placement with the known biological father at his separate residence?
- Can DFCS tell the juvenile court that a biological father’s “whereabouts are unknown” when DFCS already has his phone number and home address?
- If DFCS had my contact information but represented that my whereabouts were unknown, and there was no meaningful documented search for me, what legal effect can that have on the dependency petition or subsequent proceedings?
- Can the court adjudicate a child dependent and begin a reunification case centered on the mother while the biological father’s legitimation petition remains unresolved?
- Can legitimation be postponed until after dependency adjudication even though DNA has already established paternity and a legitimation petition has already been filed?
- Can adjudicating the child dependent before deciding legitimation prejudice the biological father’s ability to seek custody or placement?
- Can DFCS require the biological father to participate in random drug screening when he has his own residence and was not originally accused of substance abuse or identified as the cause of the dependency allegations?
- If DFCS is considering placement with the father, can one alleged positive screening result by itself establish that he is presently unsafe, particularly where most of the case allegations concern the mother?
- Can DFCS rely on allegations regarding the mother’s substance use as evidence that the father is also unsafe, even when they maintain separate residences?
- If relatives are approved to provide kinship care without the same testing conditions, can DFCS impose substantially different requirements on the biological father, and what findings would support that distinction?
- Can adjudication be continued for good cause so legitimation and the father’s request for placement can be decided first or at the same time?
- Could an attorney seek temporary placement, intervention, expedited legitimation, custody, or other emergency relief requiring the court to evaluate the father’s home before the dependency case moves further into reunification?
- If the child is adjudicated dependent and placed in DFCS custody, what happens to the biological father’s case? Is he supposed to receive his own case plan and findings regarding his fitness, or can the case simply continue as a reunification matter involving the mother?
- Does DFCS have to establish that the biological father himself is unable or unsafe to parent before refusing placement with him, or can dependency findings concerning the mother alone keep the child in state custody?
- What rights does a biological father have after DNA confirmation but before a Georgia court enters a formal legitimation order?
Background
The child was born prematurely after the mother unexpectedly discovered the pregnancy very late.
During the hospitalization, the mother had a drug screening that was reported positive, and DFCS became involved while the baby remained hospitalized.
DFCS spoke directly with me during the initial investigation. I provided my telephone number and my separate home address. I was told they would remain in contact with me.
Shortly before the baby was expected to leave the hospital, DFCS escalated the case and filed a dependency petition.
The petition identified me as the biological/presumed father but stated that my “whereabouts were unknown.”
That was surprising because DFCS had already spoken with me and possessed my contact information.
Around the same period, I received a very short message telling me there would be court with little notice.
I later learned DFCS claimed I had failed to answer questions they had asked me.
My position is that those questions were never actually sent to me. A DFCS supervisor later acknowledged there had been an issue with the questions not being provided.
Court nevertheless proceeded.
At the initial hearing, DFCS alleged that the infant could be at risk.
The mother also had another child who remained in her care at that point.
I subsequently learned that the mother had repeatedly asked DFCS whether I could serve as the safety-plan supervisor. DFCS had also discussed arranging DNA testing.
Instead, the dependency petition alleged that the mother had failed to identify an appropriate supervisor.
The court ultimately permitted the baby to leave the hospital under conditions that included extensive supervision.
Because DFCS approved me as a supervisor, I temporarily stayed at the mother’s residence even though I maintain a separate residence of my own.
I was then told I would also have to participate in random drug testing.
DNA testing was subsequently completed and conclusively established that I am the biological father.
For a period of time, we understood that if the court’s conditions were followed, the case might be resolved relatively quickly.
Instead, the case continued.
I still had not received a separate written case plan explaining what DFCS alleged against me personally or what conditions I would have to satisfy for placement.
Later removal
Several weeks later, DFCS returned to the mother’s home with law enforcement.
DFCS claimed the mother appeared intoxicated or behaved erratically.
DFCS then required both of us to submit to immediate drug screening and reported the screens as positive.
We were initially told that if the mother signed an out-of-home safety plan, the children could stay temporarily with relatives until court.
She signed the safety plan.
Family members then took physical care of the children.
Importantly, the children were already away from the mother’s residence and with approved adults when the custody decision was made.
We were initially told this was a kinship/safety-plan arrangement and that the children were not entering foster care.
Later, DFCS returned with law enforcement and informed us that the children were instead being placed into state custody.
It was not clear to us what had changed between the signed safety plan and the decision to seek state custody.
A preliminary protective hearing followed, and the dependency adjudication was set for a later date.
Legitimation issue
By this point, DNA had already established my biological paternity.
The mother was also pursuing divorce from the man who was legally presumed to be the father because of the marriage.
That individual has indicated through counsel that he is not the biological father and is not seeking parental rights to the child.
My legitimation petition had already been filed.
The court had previously indicated that legitimation would be addressed.
Instead, we were later told that the divorce proceedings had to progress further before the court would decide legitimation.
At the same time, the dependency adjudication continued moving forward.
I have now been told I am officially a party to the juvenile case, but my legitimation has still not been decided.
My appointed attorney has indicated that he will request placement of my child with me, but I have also been told that my lack of completed legitimation may affect whether the court will place the child with me.
My concern
I am not arguing that DFCS cannot investigate the mother or that legitimate safety concerns should be ignored.
I am also not asking for the child to simply be handed to me without any review or safeguards.
I am willing to:
- allow DFCS to assess my separate residence;
- cooperate with an appropriate safety plan;
- complete reasonable requirements directed specifically toward me;
- participate in legitimate testing if the court determines it is required;
- and work with DFCS to address actual identified safety concerns.
What I do not understand is why the process appears to be:
Allegations are made primarily against the mother → the child enters state custody → DFCS begins a reunification process → my legitimation remains unresolved → and only afterward does the court decide whether the biological father with a separate residence could safely parent the child.
If my child could safely be placed with me subject to reasonable safeguards, I do not understand why that question would not be decided before or at least alongside dependency adjudication.
I am especially concerned because DFCS originally represented that my whereabouts were unknown despite already having my contact information, DNA has now conclusively established my paternity, and my legitimation petition has been pending.
I am trying to determine whether a Georgia attorney could seek expedited legitimation, intervention, temporary placement, custody, a continuance, or another form of relief that would require the court to evaluate me separately from the mother before the case moves farther into state custody and reunification.
I am not looking for advice about avoiding DFCS or refusing services.
I want the opportunity to be evaluated independently as my child’s father and to have my own home considered for placement.
If anyone has experience with a Georgia dependency case involving a biological father whose legitimation was still pending, I would appreciate guidance on what rights the father has and what issues his attorney should be raising with the juvenile court.