O.C.G.A.
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.
The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-180, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-54, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code sec-
tion, are included in the annotations for this Code section. See the Editor’s notes at the beginning of the chapter. Sufficient findings of deprivation. - Evidence that parents were imprisoned
for abusing one of their three children, and their parental rights were terminated as to that child; that a second child, while in their care, sustained permanent brain injuries due to abusive head trauma, and the child’s arm was fractured in a manner consistent with abuse; and the fact that the parents invoked the Fifth Amendment during the deprivation hearing was sufficient to allow the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that their two additional children were deprived as defined by former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(8)(A) (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-107). In the Interest of A.A., 293 Ga. App. 471, 667 S.E.2d 641 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-54). Father’s contention that the juvenile court’s deprivation order was deficient was without merit because, pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-54(a) (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-181), the juvenile court’s order clearly stated that the court’s finding of deprivation was based on the father’s sexual abuse of his children and the mother’s failure to stop such abuse as alleged. In the Interest of S.B., 312 Ga.
App. 180, 718 S.E.2d 49 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-54). Eighteen-month-old child was properly found to be a dependent child because the child was a victim of abuse under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(2)(A) based on multiple bruises, a skull fracture, and other non-accidental injuries the child suffered while in the care of the mother and her boyfriend, who both acknowledged that no other person had been caring for the child. In the Interest of S. C. S., 336 Ga. App. 236, 784 S.E.2d 83 (2016). Juvenile court’s dependency determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence because no evidence or testimony was proffered regarding other children in foster care, and any concerns about the mother’s residence and the evidence of drug use through two positive hair follicle drug screenings was controverted by the mother presenting three negative hair follicle drug screenings covering the same time period. In the Interest of M. S., 352 Ga. App. 249, 834 S.E.2d 343 (2019).
Notes of Decisions
In the Interest of A. W., a Child, 797 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “14 See OCGA § 19-13-1 (“As used in this article, the term ‘family violence’ means the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents…”
In the Interest of T. Y. (Child.) Mother, 829 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2d 211 (2008) ; see OCGA § 15-11-180 ("The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence.”
In the Interest of G. M., Child. (Mother), 819 S.E.2d 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2d 211 (2008) ; see OCGA § 15-11-180 ("The petitioner shall have the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence.”
In the Interest of M. S., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “163, 164 (1) ( 816 SE2d 313 ) (2018) (citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted); see also OCGA § 15-11-180 (providing that the State bears “the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence”).”
In the Interest of L. K., Child. (Father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “in the presence of a child.”14 Moreover, a finding of parental unfitness is “essential to support an adjudication of present dependency.”
In the Interest of a. M. B., Child. (mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “7 163, 164 (1) ( 816 SE2d 313 ) (2018) (citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted); see also OCGA § 15-11-180 (providing that the petitioner bears “the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence”).”
In the Interest of S. W., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “In fact, as the mother correctly argues, the order did not contain any finding, much less a finding by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-180, that S. W. was dependent at the time of the order or that such dependency was likely to continue.”
In the Interest of B. M. R., a Child (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “4 See OCGA § 15-11-180 (providing that the State bears “the burden of proving the allegations of a dependency petition by clear and convincing evidence”).”
In the Interest of T. K., Child. (mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “So viewed, the record shows that on July 10, 2024, the Department filed a complaint as to the children, alleging that they were dependant as to the mother because she tested positive for methamphetamine while at a hospital seven days earlier.”
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.