O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-213 (2019)

Disposition orders; considerations

✓ 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

Any order of disposition shall contain written findings of fact to support the disposition and case plan ordered. Before making an order of disposition, the court shall consider the following:

(1) Why the best interests and safety of a child adjudicated as a dependent child are served by the disposition and case plan ordered, including but not limited to:

(A) The interaction and interrelationship of such child with his or her parent, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests;

(B) Such child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community;

(C) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;

(D) The wishes of such child as to his or her placement;

(E) The wishes of such child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian as to such child’s custody;

(F) Whether there exists a relative of such child or other individual who, after study by DFCS, is found to be qualified to receive and care for such child; and

(G) The ability of a parent, guardian, or legal custodian of a child adjudicated as a dependent child to care for such child in the home so that no harm will result to such child;

(2) The availability of services recommended in the case plan;

(3) What alternative dispositions or services under the case plan were considered by the court and why such dispositions or services were not appropriate in the instant case;

(4) The appropriateness of the particular placement made or to be made by the placing agency; and

(5) Whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of a child adjudicated as a dependent child’s removal and to reunify his or her family after removal from the custody of his or her family unless reasonable efforts were not required. The court’s findings should include a brief description of what preventive and reunification efforts were made and why further efforts could not have prevented or eliminated the necessity of such removal.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-213, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Juvenile court required to determine what is in child’s best interest. - In a dependency case, sua sponte order dismissing the proceeding was vacated

because the juvenile court failed to make proper resolution of the dependency petition as the juvenile court was required to determine what was in the child’s best

interest. In the Interest of A. L. S., 350 Ga. App. 636, 829 S.E.2d 900 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2022 · leading case: In re A. L. S., 829 S.E.2d 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
In re A. L. S., 829 S.E.2d 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See *905 OCGA § 15-11-213 (setting forth factors to be considered before court enters disposition order and the requirement of written findings of fact); see generally Scott , supra (noting that whether a change of custody is warranted depends on the factual situation at the…”
In the Interest of S. W., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Moreover, if we construe the July 2019 temporary order as a disposition order — since it was the only order entered after the June 21, 2019 disposition hearing that could constitute a disposition — it failed to comply with OCGA § 15-11-213. That statute mandates that “[a]ny…”
In the Interest of A. L. S., a Child (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-11-213 (setting forth factors to be considered before court enters disposition order and the requirement of written findings of fact); see generally Scott, supra (noting that whether a change of custody is warranted depends on the factual situation at the time the…”
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.