Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2014 Code 1933, § 24A-2201, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-33, and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-56, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section. See the Editor's notes at the beginning of the chapter.

Juvenile Code requires separate trials with each having different goals.

- First or adjudicatory process in a delinquency case is a full scale fact-finding hearing to determine if the child committed the act with which the child is charged and whether that constitutes delinquency. D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga. App. 234, 217 S.E.2d 470 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2201); J.B. v. State, 139 Ga. App. 545, 228 S.E.2d 712 (1976);(decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2201).

Purpose of division of juvenile trials into two phases.

- In dividing juvenile trials into two phases lawmakers intended to give the juvenile judge an opportunity to conduct the "functional equivalent" of a regular trial (the adjudicatory hearing) in a manner which would satisfy the required constitutional procedures concomitant with the usual legal rules, such as those dealing with admissibility of evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and similar requirements applicable to adults. Thereafter, at the dispositional phase, the judge was to explore all available additional avenues, including psychiatric and sociological studies, which would enable the judge to provide a solution for the youngster and the family aimed at making the child a secure law-abiding member of society. D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga. App. 234, 217 S.E.2d 470 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2201).

Continuances under O.C.G.A.

§ 15-11-110 apply only to dependency proceedings. - O.C.G.A. § 15-11-110, which assists and protects children whose physical or mental health and welfare is substantially at risk of harm from abuse, neglect, or exploitation and who may be further threatened by the conduct of others, applies to dependency proceedings and not to delinquency proceedings. In the Interest of A. H., 332 Ga. App. 590, 774 S.E.2d 163 (2015).

Continuation of a dispositional hearing should have been allowed when the probation officer notified the court that the officer was not prepared to make a recommendation regarding disposition. In re M.D., 233 Ga. App. 261, 503 S.E.2d 888 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-33).

In a child dependency case involving a child to whom the 10-day hearing time limit in O.C.G.A. § 15-11-181(a) applied, the juvenile court's grant of a continuance until four weeks later did not meet the stringent requirements of O.C.G.A. § 15-11-110 for granting a continuance; dismissal without prejudice should have been granted. In the Interest of I. L. M., 304 Ga. 114, 816 S.E.2d 620 (2018).

Cited in In the Interest of E. G. M., 341 Ga. App. 33, 798 S.E.2d 639 (2017).