Hospital to Foster Care: A Father Says Georgia DFCS Took His Newborn Without Notifying Family
Series: Georgia DFCS Case Review
Post 2 of the series - Post 1 can be found here.
Child’s date of birth: December 20, 2023
Jurisdiction at birth: Clayton County, Georgia
When a newborn is taken into state custody, one question matters immediately:
Who knew—and who should have been notified?
In this Georgia DFCS case, father William Gapac alleges that his daughter was placed into foster care directly from the hospital at birth without him or other family members being notified, despite advance planning, existing legal documentation, and known family contacts.
According to William, this moment—what happened (or didn’t happen) in the hours and days surrounding his daughter’s birth—set off a chain of events that would keep her in the foster care system for more than a year.
The Context: Incarceration, Mental Health, and Advance Planning
William reports that the child’s mother had significant mental-health diagnoses and was incarcerated during pregnancy. He states that medication management during pregnancy was complex and that her condition was known to the state.
Anticipating that the mother might not be able to make decisions or advocate effectively at the time of birth, William says he took preemptive legal steps:
He executed a durable power of attorney intended to establish decision-making authority and ensure that he or other family members would be notified if the child was born while the mother was incarcerated.
He states that this documentation included contact information for himself and his sister (who would later become the kinship caregiver).
He reports communicating with prison leadership ahead of time to ensure a “packet” or notice process would be in place when the child was delivered.
In short, William’s position is that this was not a situation where family was unknown, unreachable, or unwilling.
The Birth: December 20, 2023
According to William, his daughter was born by C-section on December 20, 2023, earlier than her expected January due date.
He alleges:
He was not notified by the prison, the hospital, or DFCS that the birth had occurred.
No call, email, or formal notice was made to him or other family members at or near the time of delivery.
The durable power of attorney and family contact information were not acted upon.
From William’s perspective, this was not an oversight—it was a failure with immediate consequences.
How He Says He Found Out: A Medicaid Card
William states that he learned his daughter had been born eight days later, not through DFCS or medical staff, but when he received a Medicaid card in the mail.
The card was addressed to his daughter.
The effective date listed was December 20, 2023.
It arrived on or about December 28, 2023.
That mailing, William says, is how he discovered his child existed—and that she was already under state involvement.
Shortly after receiving the card, he reports going in person to a DFCS office and later using intake channels to determine where his daughter was and which county had custody.
Placement From the Hospital
According to William, by the time he made contact with DFCS, his daughter had already been placed into foster care directly from the hospital.
He alleges that:
The child was not released to family at birth.
No emergency kinship placement was initiated.
Family members who were later approved were not contacted at the outset.
This point is critical because it shapes everything that follows. Once a child enters foster care, the system’s momentum shifts—timelines begin running, documentation becomes self-reinforcing, and parents must fight uphill to undo initial decisions.
The Documentation Dispute Begins
William alleges that DFCS records generated after the placement asserted that:
“Every effort” had been made to locate or notify the father and family, and/or
The child was placed due to “neglect” or “abandonment.”
William disputes those claims as factually inaccurate.
His position is that:
The mother was incarcerated and therefore not capable of abandoning the child in the ordinary sense.
The child was never removed from a home environment.
Family contact information existed and was discoverable through multiple state systems.
He himself initiated contact once he learned of the birth.
These alleged discrepancies between what happened and what was written in the record are a central theme of the case.
Why Notification at Birth Matters So Much
In child welfare cases, the earliest decisions are often the hardest to undo.
If family is not notified at birth:
The child may be placed with strangers instead of kin.
Bonding begins elsewhere.
Records begin to frame the case around state custody, not family reunification.
Parents later face accusations of delay or non-involvement—even if they were never told.
William argues that this is exactly what happened here: a failure at the front end created a false narrative that followed him for months.
What Evidence Exists
William states that he has documentation and recordings that support his account of events, including:
The durable power of attorney executed before the birth
Communications with prison officials prior to delivery
Records showing when and how he learned of the birth
DFCS documentation generated after placement
Recorded calls with DFCS leadership discussing errors and delays
These materials, he says, are either already part of the court record or have been submitted for inclusion.
Why This Moment Defines the Case
Everything else in this case—extended foster placement, delayed kinship care, service requirements, supervision mandates—flows from what happened (or didn’t happen) at birth.
If family should have been notified and wasn’t, the implications are profound.
If records later mischaracterized that failure, the consequences multiply.
That is why this series begins here.
What’s Next in the Series
The next post will examine the “abandonment” and “neglect” claims that William says were used to justify continued foster care—and why he argues those claims collapse under scrutiny.
Up next:
How Can a Child Be “Abandoned” When the Mother Is Incarcerated? Examining a Core DFCS Claim
