In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother)

── In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother) ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General FOURTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., WATKINS and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules April 24, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0324. IN THE INTEREST OF A. A., a child. MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge. The mother of A. A. appeals the order awarding the permanent guardianship of A. A. to his paternal grandmother. The mother has not shown reversible error. So we affirm. 1. Background In reviewing the juvenile court’s findings that support a guardianship order, we construe the evidence in favor of the judgment and determine[ ] whether a rational trier of fact could have found clear and convincing evidence that reunification services should not be provided. We neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; we defer to the  juvenile court’s factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met. In the Interest of K. G., 343 Ga. App. 345, 347(2)(b) (807 SE2d 70) (2017) (citation modified). So viewed, the record shows that in February 2023, the Paulding County Division of Family and Children Services initiated dependency proceedings concerning then four-month-old A. A. and his five-year-old half sister, M. S. The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and placed them in the custody of A. A.’s paternal grandparents. In August 2023, the division filed a petition to make the paternal grandmother A. A.’s permanent guardian. The juvenile court scheduled a hearing on the petition for permanent guardianship (as well as on a petition for legitimation of M. S., A. A.’s half sister) for April 15, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the mother, the father of A. A., the father of M. S., the grandmother who was the temporary guardian and proposed permanent guardian, the guardian ad litem, and the parties’ counsel met to discuss the case. When the hearing convened, the attorney for the division announced to the court that they had reached 2 a resolution for both children. She announced that they had agreed that M. S. would remain with the grandmother until the end of the school year, at which time custody would be returned to the mother. She announced that the parties agreed that the grandmother would have permanent guardianship of A. A. and that the parents would have visitation; would be informed of his medical appointments; and would have access to A. A.’s medical records. The attorneys for the parents of A. A. confirmed that they agreed with those terms. The guardian ad litem stated that she was “in full agreement” with the permanent guardianship as to A. A. But she had concerns regarding M. S., because she thought the grandmother might not feel comfortable with “transitional visits” until the end of the school year. The court swore in the grandmother to ask about her concerns. She gave sometimes conflicting testimony. She testified that she was willing to have guardianship of M. S., but that she was not willing to keep M. S. until the end of the school year. She testified that she was concerned that the parents did not have a car since A. A.’s father’s source of income was driving for Uber. Contrary to her prior 3 testimony, the grandmother testified that she was willing to keep M. S. until the school year ended, so as not to disrupt her education, but she was “just not willing to take the parents’ responsibility.” The attorney for M. S.’s putative father then questioned the grandmother about her testimony that the p