A Georgia DFCS Case Raises Serious Questions About Newborn Foster Placement, Due Process, and Family Separation
Updated: December 2025
Next hearing referenced: January 15, 2026
When a child is born into difficult circumstances, the child welfare system exists to protect that child. But protection is not supposed to come at the expense of truth, due process, or family—especially when family is available, documented, and actively seeking placement.
This blog series examines a Georgia DFCS case involving William Gapac, a father who alleges that his daughter was placed into foster care directly from the hospital at birth, despite the existence of family placement options, legal documentation intended to ensure notification, and extensive efforts on his part to locate and reunify with his child.
What follows is not rumor or hearsay. According to William, this case is supported by documents, recorded phone calls, affidavits, and official records—many of which are now part of, or intended to become part of, the court record.
This first post serves as an overview and entry point. Subsequent posts will examine specific aspects of the case in detail.
Why This Case Matters
Cases like this are not just about one family.
They raise broader questions about:
how newborn placements are handled when a parent is incarcerated,
how “abandonment” and “neglect” are defined and documented,
how kinship placement decisions are delayed or denied,
how caseworker turnover affects accuracy and accountability,
and how time itself can become a weapon against parents once a child enters foster care.
At the center of every child welfare case is a simple truth:
a child’s life does not pause while bureaucracy works itself out.
The Family at the Center of the Case
Father: William Gapac
Child: Daughter, born December 20, 2023
Jurisdictions involved: Clayton County, Georgia → later transferred to Bryan County, Georgia
Current placement (per father): Kinship foster placement with William’s sister
William is a retired paramedic, a father of ten, and someone who describes himself as meticulous about documentation. Throughout his interview, he emphasizes that he has preserved emails, letters, court filings, call recordings, and medical-related documentation tied to this case.
The Central Allegations (High-Level)
According to William, the core issues in this case include:
Failure to Notify Family at Birth
William alleges he was not notified when his daughter was born, despite having taken steps in advance—including executing a durable power of attorney—to ensure he or other family members would be contacted if the child’s mother could not act.Hospital-to-Foster Placement Despite Available Family
He alleges his daughter was placed into foster care directly from the hospital, even though family members were available, identifiable, and willing to assume care.Disputed Claims of “Abandonment” and “Neglect”
William disputes DFCS documentation that allegedly claimed abandonment or neglect, arguing those assertions are incompatible with the facts—particularly given that the child’s mother was incarcerated and the child was not removed from a home environment.Extended Time in Foster Care
He reports that his daughter remained in the foster system for over a year before being placed with family, despite kinship options existing much earlier.Caseworker Turnover and Continuances
William describes repeated caseworker changes across counties and multiple court continuances, which he says delayed resolution and perpetuated inaccurate narratives.Escalating Services Despite Kinship Placement
Even after his daughter was placed with his sister, William alleges DFCS sought to add supervised visitation through third-party providers and mandated daycare—actions he believes are disconnected from the child’s actual living situation.Disputed Drug Testing
William alleges drug testing results were misinterpreted or inadequately confirmed, despite prescribed medications and independent assessments that he says did not support substance-abuse concerns.
Evidence, Not Just Allegations
A key distinction in this case is that William does not present his story as opinion alone.
He states that he possesses:
recorded calls with DFCS personnel and affiliated organizations,
written correspondence with county officials,
durable power of attorney documentation,
court filings and affidavits,
drug testing and assessment records,
and documentation related to visitation and placement decisions.
Some of those recorded calls, according to William, include acknowledgments by DFCS leadership that mistakes were made and that aspects of the case were “not done correctly.”
These materials are central to why this case warrants public attention.
The Role of Time in Child Welfare Cases
Federal child welfare frameworks place significant emphasis on timelines—often cited as 15 of the most recent 22 months—after which states are encouraged to pursue permanency outcomes, including termination of parental rights in certain circumstances.
William argues that delays, continuances, and administrative inertia worked against him, allowing time to accumulate while core factual disputes were never fully resolved.
This series will explore how delay itself can create irreversible consequences, even when a parent is actively engaged and documented evidence exists.
What This Series Will Cover
This is the first post in a multi-part investigative and explanatory series. Upcoming posts will cover:
The birth and alleged failure to notify family
How “abandonment” was allegedly documented—and why it’s disputed
Kinship placement options and why they were delayed
Caseworker turnover and institutional memory loss
Drug testing, prescriptions, and false-positive concerns
Supervised visitation and service expansion in kinship cases
Recorded calls and admissions by officials
Why this case reflects systemic issues beyond one family
Each post will focus on one issue at a time, grounded in documentation and careful language.
Why Publish This Publicly?
William has stated clearly that his motivation is not retaliation, but accountability.
He believes that:
inaccurate records must be corrected,
systems must be transparent when they fail,
and other families deserve to know how similar situations can unfold.
Public sunlight does not replace courts—but it can ensure that courts, agencies, and the public understand what is at stake.
What Comes Next
The next post in this series will focus on the events surrounding the birth, including the durable power of attorney, the lack of notification, and the hospital-to-foster placement decision that set everything else in motion.
Next up:
“Hospital to Foster Care: A Father Says Georgia DFCS Took His Newborn Without Notifying Family”
