In the Interest of S. M. W.

Ruffin, Judge.

The father of S. M. W. appeals the termination of his parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.1 Specifically, he argues that the State failed to show that S. M. W.’s deprivation is likely to continue or that she would be harmed by a continuing relationship with him.2 Because we conclude that the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the cause of deprivation is likely to continue, we reverse.

On appeal from a termination of parental rights, we defer to the juvenile court’s factfinding and do not weigh the evidence or determine the…