Appellant appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights in her minor child.
1. " 'The appropriate standard of appellate review in a case of this sort is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [judgment of the juvenile court], any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent's rights to custody were lost. . . . The factfinding and weighing of evidence is to be done in the [juvenile] court under the clear and convincing evidence test. The reviewing court is to defer to the [juvenile] court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test. . ., is not met. When we apply that test here we note the conflicting evidence presented to the [juvenile] court and conclude that a rational factfinder could have found by clear and convincing evidence ([present] parental . . . inability [which is likely to go unremedied, as is required] by OCGA 15-11-81
(b))' . . . [Cit.]" In the Interest of S. T., 201 Ga. App. 37
, 40 (4) (410 SE2d 312
) (1991). See also In the Interest of J. I. H., 191 Ga. App. 848
, 850 (3) (383 SE2d 349
) (1989); In the Interest of S. G. & T. G., 182 Ga. App. 95
, 101 (354 SE2d 640
) (1987). Compare Chancey v. Dept. of Human Resources, 156 Ga. App. 338 (1) (274 SE2d 728) (1980)
; R. C. N. v. State of Ga., 141 Ga. App. 490
, 492 (233 SE2d 866
) (1977). The general grounds are without merit.
2. Appellant's remaining enumeration of error is moot.