On December 1, 2008, in In the Interest of A.R., the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the deprivation ruling of the juvenile court over the Father’s challenge of the sufficiency of evidence andadmission of evidence. The Father contended that the juvenile court erred in finding the children deprived, since there was no evidence that he was the person who hurt the children. The Court ofAppeals disagreed, referring to evidence that the children were injured and became developmentally delayed while in the Father’s care, and the fact that the Father’s incarceration rendered himunable to comply with the reunification plan.
The Father further challenged the admissibility of certain testimony and documentary evidence, but failed to provide support for his appeal of these issues or to show how the admissibility wasreversible. In its holdings, the Court of Appeals implicitly stressed the importance of being specific in how and why the lower court erred, which is a guideline all parties should follow inappeals.