CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2018 | 304 Ga. 114
...On November 13, 2015, the parents filed a joint motion to dismiss the dependency petition, asserting that the juvenile court's decision to continue the originally scheduled hearing of October 22, 2015 contravened the scheduling provisions of OCGA §§
15-11-1104 and **11515-11-181,5 and that the court's order failed to meet OCGA §
15-11-110 's requirements for granting a continuance....
...de properly under the relevant statutes to authorize the Court of Appeals' affirmance of it.
OCGA §
15-11-181 (a) sets out time limits in which an adjudication hearing on a dependency petition must occur, and the adjudication completed,10 and OCGA §
15-11-110 governs the granting of a continuance of an adjudication hearing "beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held." OCGA §
15-11-110 (a). A continuance is to be "granted only upon a showing of good cause [and] only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion ." OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) (Emphasis supplied.) This shows a clear requirement that a departure from the statutory hearing schedule is to be ordered only for significant reasons, and only after considering evidence regarding the reasons that allegedly create the necessity.11 That this mandate is to be *624strictly followed is also seen in OCGA §
15-11-110 (c) 's specifications that counsel stipulation and party inconvenience shall not be considered good cause, and that while a need for discovery may constitute good cause, a continuance may be granted only if there has been a failure to comply with a discovery order. Indeed, "a pending criminal prosecution or family law matter" may constitute good cause only after consideration of "judicial rules governing attorney conflict resolution," OCGA §
15-11-110 (c), and even with counsel consent to a continuance, the court must "decide whether to grant the continuance in accordance with subsection **118(a) of this Code section,"12 and place upon the record "the facts proved which require the continuance." OCGA §
15-11-110 (b).13 Thus, OCGA §
15-11-110 's requirements significantly advance the purpose of "ensur[ing] that dependency proceedings are conducted expeditiously to avoid delays in permanency plans for children." OCGA §
15-11-100 (2).14
In its order denying the parents' motion to dismiss, the juvenile court addressed its prior decision to continue the October 22, 2015 hearing, and stated that it had "fully considered all requirements set **119forth in O.C.G.A. §
15-11-110."15 The court also cited In the Interest of D.T....
...court may continue a hearing for a reasonable time upon good cause shown."17 *626In the Interest of L.A.E. ,
265 Ga. 698, 700 (1),
462 S.E.2d 148 (1995) ; In the Interest of D.T. , supra at 341 (3),
643 S.E.2d 842. And, in its 2013 enactment of OCGA §
15-11-110, the General Assembly not only incorporated "good cause" into the statute, but **120imposed specific requirements for the granting of continuances in dependency hearings.
Considerations of docket congestion may, in fact, constitute "good cause" justifying a continuance under OCGA §
15-11-110....
...rized a continuance to a date within the period set by the statute for a hearing, the only justification the court gave for continuing the hearing almost four weeks in the future was that the reset date was the "next available court date." But, OCGA §
15-11-110 requires more from a court than this; a continuance under OCGA §
15-11-110 is to be granted "only for that period of time shown to be necessary. " OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, a court must evaluate what other matters are competing for the court's attention such that the dependency hearing must be continued to the date chosen, including a determination of why those other matters must be afforded a priority over that given the dependency hearing by virtue of OCGA §
15-11-110, and the court must place upon the record those facts justifying the continuance, as found at the time the continuance was granted.19 However, the court did not, in any written or recorded order, put forth any showing regarding the other cases on the docket sufficient to show why this matter, despite its priority, was reset to November 18, 2015. As such, the order failed to meet the stringent requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) for ordering a continuance beyond the statutory period.20 **122OCGA §
15-11-181 (a) states that "[i]f adjudication is not completed within 60 days from the date such child was taken into protective custody, the petition alleging dependency may be dismissed without prejudice." E.G.M....
...In rejecting the parents' arguments in favor of dismissing without prejudice the dependency petition, the juvenile court relied upon the fact that it had continued the dependency hearing on October 22, 2015. But, that continuance order did not meet the requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110, and it was that flawed continuance order that caused the failure to meet the adjudication time limit of OCGA § 15-11-118 (a)....
...Such petition shall not be accepted for filing unless the court or a person authorized by the court has determined and endorsed on the petition that the filing of the petition is in the best interests of the public and such child.
The court later, on its own motion, rescheduled the hearing for November 17, 2015.
OCGA §
15-11-110 reads:
(a) Upon request of an attorney for a party, the court may continue any hearing under this article beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held; provided, however, that no continuance shall be granted that is contrary to the interests of the child....
...was dependent.
Although the statute requires a showing of good cause and "evidence" presented on the period of time shown to be necessary, and that these facts be entered in the court record, nothing in the statute prohibits the court from considering evidence already in the court's record.
It is true that OCGA §
15-11-110 (a) refers to requests for continuances by "an attorney for a party" that would continue any hearing beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held....
...al court's discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried"). And that is precisely what the General Assembly has done in enacting the firm time limits of OCGA §
15-11-181 and the procedural and substantive finding requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110. As a result, if a judge wishes to continue a proceeding to which OCGA §
15-11-110 applies beyond the time limits of OCGA §
15-11-181, he or she must first comply with the requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110.
The parents note OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) 's language that a continuance "shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion," and suggest that a separate hearing must thus be held on any motion to continue a dependency hearing....
...(4) To ensure that the health, safety, and best interests of a child be the paramount concern in all dependency proceedings.
In its continuance order, the court stated it found "that the continuance is not contrary to the interests of the child as outlined in O.C.G.A. §
15-11-110."
When the opinion of In the Interest of D.T....
...n abused or neglected and is in need of the protection of the court...." OCGA §
15-11-2 (22) (A).
In the Interest of G.R.B. ,
330 Ga. App. 693, 693-694 n. 1,
769 S.E.2d 119 (2015). To the extent that there is any conflict between UJCR 11.3 and OCGA §
15-11-110, UJCR 11.3 would not "abrogate or interfere with an otherwise-valid statutory enactment...." Edwards v....
...Notice of the January 12, 2016 hearing date was entered on January 5, 2016.
Although the continuance order states that the court "has considered the need for a prompt resolution of the custody status, the need for a stable environment, and the need to eliminate prolonged temporary placements," factors which OCGA §
15-11-110 (a) directs the court to give substantial weight, nothing in the order, or the record as a whole, indicates why these considerations were outweighed by other matters on the docket.
We are aware that juvenile courts must manage congested...
...See, e.g., OCGA §
15-11-301 (time requirements for hearings on petitions to terminate parental rights); OCGA §
15-11-403 (regulating continuances of hearings on complaints alleging children are in need of services); and OCGA §
15-11-478 (addressing continuances of hearings in delinquency proceedings). However, OCGA §
15-11-110 is clear that a continuance of a dependency hearing must be made in compliance with its requirements, and the continuance granted here was not so made.
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2018
...On November 13, 2015, the parents filed a joint motion to dismiss the
dependency petition, asserting that the juvenile court’s decision to continue the
originally scheduled hearing of October 22, 2015 contravened the scheduling
provisions of OCGA §§
15-11-1104 and
15-11-181,5 and that the court’s order
2
OCGA §
15-11-150 reads:
A DFCS employee, a law enforcement officer, or any person who has actual
knowledge of the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a ch...
...d endorsed on
the petition that the filing of the petition is in the best interests of the public and such
child.
3
The court later, on its own motion, rescheduled the hearing for November 17, 2015.
4
OCGA §
15-11-110 reads:
(a) Upon request of an attorney for a party, the court may continue any hearing under
2
failed to meet OCGA §
15-11-110’s requirements for granting a continuance.
The juvenile court then, without request from any party, again continued the
adjudication hearing, setting it for January 12, 2016;6 again, no written order re-
setting the adjudication hearing was entered at that time....
...was taken into protective custody on October
8, 2015, the ten-day time limit applied, rather than the 60-day limit in which OCGA §
15-11-181 (a)
requires the adjudication hearing to be held if the child is not in foster care. In any event, January
6
and OCGA §
15-11-110 governs the granting of a continuance of an
adjudication hearing “beyond the time limit within which the hearing is
otherwise required to be held.” OCGA §
15-11-110 (a). A continuance is to be
“granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time
shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion.”
OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) (Emphasis supplied.) This shows a clear requirement
that a departure from the statutory hearing schedule is to be ordered only for
significant reasons, and only after considering evidence regarding the reasons
that allegedly create the necessity.11 That this mandate is to be strictly followed
is also seen in OCGA §
15-11-110 (c)’s specifications that counsel stipulation
and party inconvenience shall not be considered good cause, and that while a
need for discovery may constitute good cause, a continuance may be granted
only if there has been a failure to comply with a discovery order....
...nothing in
the statute prohibits the court from considering evidence already in the court’s record.
7
only after consideration of “judicial rules governing attorney conflict
resolution,” OCGA §
15-11-110 (c), and even with counsel consent to a
continuance, the court must “decide whether to grant the continuance in
accordance with subsection (a) of this Code section,” OCGA §
15-11-110 (d),12
and place upon the record “the facts proved which require the continuance.”
OCGA §
15-11-110 (b).13 Thus, OCGA §
15-11-110’s requirements
12
It is true that OCGA §
15-11-110 (a) refers to requests for continuances by “an attorney
for a party” that would continue any hearing beyond the time limit within which the hearing is
otherwise required to be held....
...ourt’s discretion to decide how cases on its
docket are to be tried”). And that is precisely what the General Assembly has done in enacting the
firm time limits of OCGA §
15-11-181 and the procedural and substantive finding requirements of
OCGA §
15-11-110. As a result, if a judge wishes to continue a proceeding to which OCGA §
15-11-110 applies beyond the time limits of OCGA §
15-11-181, he or she must first comply with
the requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110.
13
The parents note OCGA §
15-11-110 (b)’s language that a continuance “shall be granted
only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the
evidence presented at the hearing on the motion,” and suggest that a separate hearing must thus be
held on any motion to continue a dependency hearing....
...interests of a child be the
paramount concern in all dependency proceedings.
15
In its continuance order, the court stated it found “that the continuance is not contrary to
the interests of the child as outlined in O.C.G.A. §
15-11-110.”
9
version of the Juvenile Code and pertained to the treatment of a “deprived” child
rather than a “dependent” child....
...commenced on and after that date. Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 5-1 (“This Act shall
11
Interest of L. A. E.,
265 Ga. 698, 700 (1) (462 SE2d 148) (1995); In the Interest
of D. T., supra at 341 (3). And, in its 2013 enactment of OCGA §
15-11-110,
the General Assembly not only incorporated “good cause” into the statute, but
imposed specific requirements for the granting of continuances in dependency
hearings.
Considerations of docket congestion may, in fact, constitute “good cause”
justifying a continuance under OCGA §
15-11-110....
...glected and is
in need of the protection of the court. . . .” OCGA §
15-11-2 (22) (A).
In the Interest of G. R. B.,
330 Ga. App. 693, 693-694, n. 1 (769 SE2d 119) (2015). To the extent
that there is any conflict between UJCR 11.3 and OCGA §
15-11-110, UJCR 11.3 would not
“abrogate or interfere with an otherwise-valid statutory enactment ....
...have authorized a continuance to a date within the period set by the statute for
a hearing, the only justification the court gave for continuing the hearing almost
four weeks in the future was that the reset date was the “next available court
date.” But, OCGA §
15-11-110 requires more from a court than this; a
continuance under OCGA §
15-11-110 is to be granted “only for that period of
time shown to be necessary.” OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, a court must evaluate what other matters are competing for the court’s
attention such that the dependency hearing must be continued to the date chosen,
18
On November 5, 2015, the cou...
...Notice of the January 12, 2016
hearing date was entered on January 5, 2016.
13
including a determination of why those other matters must be afforded a priority
over that given the dependency hearing by virtue of OCGA §
15-11-110, and the
court must place upon the record those facts justifying the continuance, as found
at the time the continuance was granted.19 However, the court did not, in any
written or recorded order, put forth any showing regarding the other cases on the
docket sufficient to show why this matter, despite its priority, was reset to
November 18, 2015. As such, the order failed to meet the stringent
requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110 (b) for ordering a continuance beyond the
statutory period.20
OCGA §
15-11-181 (a) states that “[i]f adjudication is not completed
within 60 days from the date such child was taken into protective custody, the
petition alleging dependency may be dismissed without prejudice.” E....
...M.
19
Although the continuance order states that the court “has considered the need for a prompt
resolution of the custody status, the need for a stable environment, and the need to eliminate
prolonged temporary placements,” factors which OCGA §
15-11-110 (a) directs the court to give
substantial weight, nothing in the order, or the record as a whole, indicates why these considerations
were outweighed by other matters on the docket.
20
We are aware that juvenile courts m...
...arings on petitions to terminate parental
rights);
15-11-403 (regulating continuances of hearings on complaints alleging children are in need
of services); and
15-11-478 (addressing continuances of hearings in delinquency proceedings).
However, OCGA §
15-11-110 is clear that a continuance of a dependency hearing must be made in
compliance with its requirements, and the continuance granted here was not so made.
14
was taken into protective cus...
...In rejecting the parents’ arguments in
favor of dismissing without prejudice the dependency petition, the juvenile court
relied upon the fact that it had continued the dependency hearing on October 22,
2015. But, that continuance order did not meet the requirements of OCGA §
15-11-110, and it was that flawed continuance order that caused the failure to
meet the adjudication time limit of OCGA §
15-11-181 (a)....
