The State At The Door Came For Two More

Georgia told the court there was no emergency. Then it took two of Dayshundra Wilson’s children a month after her son died.

Oct 05, 2026

This is the same pattern I wrote about in The State at Your Door and Eleven Days Later They Came for Your Babies. The papers come first. The children go next. This time the state said, on the record, that there was no emergency.

“So the state’s position is that the department, the state, can go in, without a parent present, affirmatively say, ‘There is no emergency here, but I would like to take these children,’ and due process permits that?”
Justice Charlie Bethel, Georgia Supreme Court, September 22, 2026

Like, Comment, Restack & Share

What Happened

In 2024, Dayshundra Wilson lived in Atlanta with her five children. On June 8, at about 1:00 a.m., her 13-year-old son shot himself in the family’s apartment. He died three days later. The medical examiner ruled the death a suicide. Wilson was asleep when it happened. She was never charged with a crime.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

A month later, Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services came for two of the surviving children. Court papers name them D.B. and R.W. The other two children were living with their father.

Source: Ross Williams, Georgia Recorder, republished by The Georgia Sun, September 25, 2026 https://thegeorgiasun.com/news/justices-sound-skeptical-of-georgia-agencys-decision-to-remove-children-from-their-home/

The First Order Was Denied

On July 9, 2024, DFCS filed a dependency complaint and an emergency request to take the children. On the form, the state said the children were not in immediate danger. It said shelter care was not necessary to protect people or property. It said it did not have a good-faith belief the children would run away. It said they were not without a parent or guardian.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

The juvenile court judge denied that request on July 10. The judge found no immediate harm. The mother was cooperating. The case was referred to family preservation.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

The Second Order Was Granted

On July 11, DFCS filed again. The form again said the children were not in immediate danger. This time the filing stressed the brother’s death, an unsecured weapon, inadequate supervision, and the mother’s earlier history with the agency. The same judge granted the order. The children were removed with no parent present and no hearing first.

Source: Ross Williams, Georgia Recorder, via The Georgia Sun, September 25, 2026 https://thegeorgiasun.com/news/justices-sound-skeptical-of-georgia-agencys-decision-to-remove-children-from-their-home/

That is the fact the viral posts leave out. The first knock was turned away. The second knock, two days later, was not. Both filings said there was no immediate danger.

Source: Supreme Court of Georgia, oral argument summary, S26G0021, September 22, 2026 https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Sept22OA_output.pdf

What The Hearing Showed

A preliminary hearing was set for July 15. It was continued to August 2 at the mother’s request. At that hearing, the DFCS caseworker testified that the gun did not belong to Wilson. No other guns were found in the apartment. One sibling knew about the gun and kept it secret. The sibling believed the brother got it from another child Wilson had told him to stay away from. There was no evidence Wilson knew about the gun.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

The caseworker also said there was no evidence of abuse or neglect of these two children before or after their brother’s death. The children wanted to be with their mother. The caseworker said, “There’s nothing saying [the mother] can’t care for her kids.” The caseworker said upper leadership at the agency wanted the children removed.

DFCS also pointed to earlier reports from 2018 to 2024. Those reports involved supervision, food, clothing, shelter, and school. The caseworker testified that the earlier reports were largely unsubstantiated. None of them involved a firearm or self-harm. That history is in the record. It is not the same thing as proof these two children were in danger in July 2024.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

Judge T. Natasha Crawford dismissed the dependency petition. She found “absolutely no probable cause to believe the children are dependent.” She ordered the children returned at once. According to the hearing transcript reported later, she said, “I am baffled as to why The Department wanted to fight this.”

Source: Savannah Now, December 15, 2025 https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/state/2025/12/15/cases-challenge-practice-sending-children-to-foster-care-without-judges-order/87731103007/

The Children Came Home. The order that sent them home did not change the procedure that let the state take them.

The juvenile court sent the children home. It still denied Wilson’s due-process challenge. The judge said DFCS had followed the Juvenile Code. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on June 23, 2025. Judge McFadden dissented in part. He wrote that an order taking children with no parent present requires exceptional circumstances, and he cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Stanley v. Illinois.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

The Georgia Supreme Court took the case. The docket number is S26G0021, In the Interest of D.B. et al., Children. Oral argument was September 22, 2026. The court has not ruled. Most of its cases are decided within six months of argument.

Source: Supreme Court of Georgia, oral argument calendar, September 22, 2026 https://www.gasupreme.us/oral-arguments-september-22-2026/

What The Justices Asked

Justice Charlie Bethel asked the state’s lawyer if due process allows the department to say there is no emergency and still take the children, with no parent present. The state’s lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Sven Henningson, said yes, “in exceptional circumstances short of emergency.” Justice Verda Colvin added, “Particularly after a month had passed.”

Henningson said the exceptional circumstance was that a child had died in the house, and that a minor child had given conflicting information about an unsecured weapon. Wilson’s lawyer, Emma Brown-Bernstein, said an emergency right after the shooting would have been a different case. This case, she said, was about an unusual circumstance, not an emergency.

The state also says the case is moot because the children were returned. Wilson’s side says the question will keep coming back. These removals are short. Appeals take longer than the removal. The ACLU of Georgia and the ACLU’s Center for Liberty filed a brief asking the court to require a real emergency before the state may take a child without hearing from the parent.

Source: ACLU, In the Interest of D.B. et al. https://www.aclu.org/cases/in-the-interest-of-d-b-et-al

The Same Door

In The State at Your Door, I wrote about the papers that arrive before the parent has a real chance to answer. In Eleven Days Later They Came for Your Babies, I wrote about how short that clock can be. Wilson’s case is the same door, with a date on it.

Source:https://www.highergroundnews.com/p/the-state-at-the-door-massachusetts?r=91ugfh

Source:https://www.highergroundnews.com/p/eleven-days-latertheyre-coming-for?r=91ugfh

June 8 was the shooting. July 9 was the first filing. July 10, the judge said no. July 11, the state filed again and the children were taken. The preliminary hearing was continued to August 2. Then the same court said there was no probable cause and sent them home.

Source: Georgia Court of Appeals, In the Interest of D.B. et al., June 23, 2025 https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0616.html

A mother buried her son. About a month later, the state took two more children. On the form, it said they were not in immediate danger. A caseworker later said there was nothing showing she could not care for them. The children are home. The question in front of the Georgia Supreme Court is whether the state may do this again.

Source: Supreme Court of Georgia, case summary, S26G0021 https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Sept22OA_output.pdf

“Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him.”
Psalm 127:3

The first person to tell the story is not always the last word. The viral posts are right that the children were taken after a suicide, with no hearing, and that the state said there was no immediate danger. They are wrong if they say the first order was approved, or that the children were never returned, or that Wilson was charged.

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”
Proverbs 18:17

Share Higher Ground News

Thanks for reading Higher Ground News! This post is public so feel free to share it.