O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-150 (2019)

Authority to file petition

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A DFCS employee, a law enforcement officer, or any person who has actual knowledge of the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or is informed of the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child that he or she believes to be truthful may make a petition alleging dependency. 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.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-150, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2014, p. 780, § 1-10/SB 364.

Annotations

Cross references. - Definition of grandparent and securing of rights, § 19-7-3.

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘See No Evil, Speak No Evil: Georgia Supreme Court Narrows Requirements for Manda-

tory Reporters in May v. State,’’ see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 837 (2015). For note criticizing jurisdiction of juvenile justice system over runaways and advocating alternative legal approaches, see 24 Emory L. J. 1075 (1975). For comment on grandparents’ visitation rights in Georgia, see 29 Emory L. J. 1083 (1980).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-24, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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. Construction with former provisions. - Nonprofit advocacy organization was authorized to file a deprivation petition which was separate and distinct from the initial deprivation adjudication since there is no statutory requirement that a petition for modification must be filed un-

der former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-42 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-312), instead of a deprivation petition under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-24 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-150, 15-11-390, and 15-11-420). In re A.V.B., 222 Ga. App. 241, 474 S.E.2d 114 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-24). Great aunt and uncle. - Child’s great aunt and uncle had standing to bring a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s father and mother. In re J.J., 225 Ga. App. 682, 484 S.E.2d 681 (1997) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-24).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Code 1933, § 24-2403, which was subsequently repealed but was 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. School official not liable for investi-

gative referral of deprivation. - School official would not be held liable in a legal action founded upon the official’s good faith referral of a child neglect, abuse, or abandonment situation to a county department of family and children services for investigation. 1963-65 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 746 (decided under former Code 1933, § 24-2403).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, § 75 et seq. C.J.S. - 43 C.J.S., Infants, §§ 184 et seq., 191 et seq.

U.L.A. - Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 20.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: In re Interest of I.L.M., 816 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Interest of I.L.M., 816 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 15-11-150 et seq. 2 That same day, the juvenile court entered a protective custody order and appointed a guardian ad litem for E.”
In the Interest Of: S. C. S, a Child (Mother), 784 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 4 See OCGA §§ 15-11-150 (petition alleging dependency); 15-11-152 (contents of petition alleging dependency); 15-11-180 (burden of proof).”
In the Interest of A. W., a Child, 797 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA §§ 15-11-150; 15-11-152; 15-11-180. 11 Because the dependency petition was filed in 2015, the new Juvenile Code applies.”
In the Interest of I. L. M., Child., 304 Ga. 114 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “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…”
Oni v. Oni., 830 S.E.2d 775 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “8 We note that OCGA § 15-11-150 provides, "A DFCS employee, a law enforcement officer, or any person who has actual knowledge of the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or is informed of the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child that he or she believes to be truthful…”
In the Interest of H. H., Child. (father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “” Additionally, OCGA § 15-11-150 provides, in relevant part, that a petition for dependency “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…”
Lensey Wallace v. Stephanie Chandler (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “First, they could have filed a dependency petition under OCGA § 15-11-150,6 and the Chandlers 5 In all three cases, the mother had been awarded custody of the child following the biological parents’ divorce.”
In the Interest of M. C. Child. (mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” See OCGA §§ 15-11-150 (petition alleging dependency); 15-11-152 (contents of petition alleging dependency); 15-11-180 (burden of proof).”
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.