Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a child from being adjudicated both a dependent child and a delinquent child or both a dependent child and a child in need of services if there exists a factual basis for such a finding. (b) If a child alleged or adjudicated to be a delinquent child or a child in need of services is also alleged or adjudicated to be a dependent child, dependency proceedings may be consolidated with delinquency or child in need of services proceedings to the extent consistent with due process of law as provided in Articles 3, 5, and 6 of this chapter. (c) The time frames and requirements of Article 3 of this chapter shall apply to cases in which a child alleged or adjudicated to be a child in need of services or a delinquent child is placed in foster care and has also been alleged or adjudicated to be a dependent child.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-12, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2015, p. 540, § 1-3/HB 361.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: In the Interest of R. G., 547 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In the Interest of R. G., 547 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דThey argue that under OCGA § 15-11-12 (a), until an adjudication of deprivation is made, the court may not order a home evaluation to be made.”
In the Interest of S. K., 545 S.E.2d 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2דThat Code section was redesignated as OCGA § 15-11-12 pursuant to the 2000 amendment.”
In the Interest of M. A. I., 737 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2דSee OCGA § 15-11-65 (c); see also OCGA § 15-11-12 (b) (“During the pendency of any proceeding, the court may order the child to be examined at a suitable place by a physician or psychologist.”
In Re Rg, 547 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דThey argue that under OCGA § 15-11-12(a), until an adjudication of deprivation is made, the *734 court may not order a home evaluation to be made.”
In Re Sk, 545 S.E.2d 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2ד[3] That Code section was redesignated as OCGA § 15-11-12 pursuant to the 2000 amendment.”
In the Interest of J. A., a Child (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2דThe Juvenile Code’s statutory definition of “court” as “the juvenile court or the court exercising jurisdiction over juvenile matters,” OCGA § 15-11-12 (15), does not lead us to a different result.”
In the Interest Of: M. A. I., a Child (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2ד”14 And when it does so, the court “shall make an appropriate order for detention of the child or for the child’s 13 See OCGA § 15-11-65 (c); see also OCGA § 15-11-12 (b) (“During the pendency of any proceeding, the court may order the child to be examined at a suitable place by…”
— 15-11-12(a) — 1 case
In Re Rg, 547 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). “They argue that under OCGA § 15-11-12(a), until an adjudication of deprivation is made, the *734 court may not order a home evaluation to be made.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.