The mother of six children sought immediate reunification after the children had been placed in the custody of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services. The juvenile court denied her request in an order that recited evidence about past safety concerns, the children’s home, the mother’s mental health, and the father’s criminal history, but did not clearly identify which facts supported its conclusion that the children remained dependent. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. It explained that dependency requires evidence of present dependency and parental unfitness, not merely past misconduct or a possible future risk. Georgia law also required the juvenile court to make specific factual findings and separately state its legal conclusions. Because the order intermixed evidence, findings, and conclusions, the appellate court could not meaningfully review the sufficiency challenge or the visitation ruling. The juvenile court was directed to enter a new order with findings tied to the governing statutes.