Beavers v. Provost

Pro se appellants Jack and Lynette Beavers (Appellants) appeal from the dismissal of their petition for habeas relief. Appellants are the parents of three minor children. On May 12, 2017, the children were taken from the Appellants’ custody by the Paulding County Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and law enforcement officers and placed in temporary foster care. Three days later, on May 15, 2017, DFCS filed a complaint in juvenile court seeking a dependency removal order (DRO). Appellants sought to regain custody of their children following the entry of the Adjudication and Disposition order, which largely found appellants failed to adequately address past issues of family violence and required them to participate in a family violence assessment and training program. Appellants filed a habeas petition in an attempt to regain custody. DFCS moved to dismiss the habeas petition, arguing that the question of the children’s dependency and custody was being decided in ongoing juvenile court proceedings, that the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear dependency cases, and that habeas corpus was not an available remedy in this case. DFCS further argued that the proper method for the Appellants to challenge DFCS’s custody of the children was by appealing the juvenile court’s orders in the dependency case, which the Appellants have done. DFCS also argued that the Appellants’ claims were barred by res judicata. The habeas court dismissed the petition and alternately denied it, finding that it was improper because the dependency issues should be and were tried in juvenile court, a dispositive order had already been entered in the juvenile court proceedings, and that even if the habeas court were to assume jurisdiction over the habeas petition, petitioners were not entitled to any of the relief requested. Finding no error in that judgment, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.