In the Interest of J. E.

Today, we rightly disapprove our prior whole-court decision in In the Interest of J. K., in which we held that the “only logical inquiry” in evaluating whether a child’s continued deprivation will cause or is likely to cause that child serious harm — within the meaning of OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (A) (iv) — is whether “the child would be harmed if returned to the parent’s care and control, associated environment, and state of deprivation.”1 Specifically, the majority holds that J. K. is “disapproved” to the extent that this decision can be read as “rejecting any inquiry into the child’s…