Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 15-11-218 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 15 COURTS

Section 11. Juvenile Code, 15-11-1 through 15-11-747.

ARTICLE 3 DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS

15-11-218. Content of orders following periodic review hearings or reports by judicial citizen review panels.

  1. At the conclusion of a periodic review hearing, or upon review of a report by a judicial citizen review panel, the court shall issue written findings of fact that include:
    1. Why a child adjudicated as a dependent child continues to be a dependent child;
    2. Whether the existing case plan is still the best case plan for a child adjudicated as a dependent child and his or her family and whether any changes need to be made to the case plan including whether a concurrent case plan for nonreunification is appropriate;
    3. The extent of compliance with the case plan by all participants;
    4. The basis for any changes to the placement of a child adjudicated as a dependent child;
    5. Whether visitation is or continues to be appropriate;
    6. A description of progress being made on the permanency plan;
    7. Whether all legally required services are being provided to a child adjudicated as a dependent child, his or her foster parents if there are foster parents, and his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian;
    8. Whether, for a child adjudicated as a dependent child who is 14 years of age or older, the services needed to assist such child to make a transition from foster care to independent living are being provided; and
    9. Whether reasonable efforts continue to be made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of the removal of a child adjudicated as a dependent child and to reunify his or her family after removal, unless reasonable efforts were not required.
  2. At the conclusion of a periodic review hearing, or upon review of a report by a judicial citizen review panel, the court shall order one of the following dispositions:
    1. Return a child adjudicated as a dependent child to his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian's home with or without court imposed conditions;
    2. Allow a child adjudicated as a dependent child to continue in the current custodial placement because the current placement is appropriate for such child's needs;
    3. Allow a child adjudicated as a dependent child to continue in the current custodial placement although the current placement is no longer appropriate for such child's needs and direct DFCS to devise another plan which shall:
      1. Be submitted within ten days for court approval;
      2. Be furnished to all parties after court approval of the revised plan; and
      3. Be provided to the caregiver of a child adjudicated as a dependent child, his or her foster parents if there are foster parents, and any preadoptive parents or relative providing care for such child with a copy of those portions of the court approved revised plan that involve the permanency goal and the services to be provided to such child; or
    4. Make additional orders regarding the treatment plan or placement of a child adjudicated as a dependent child to protect such child's best interests if the court determines DFCS has failed in implementing any material provision of the case plan or abused its discretion in the placement or proposed placement of such child.

(Code 1981, §15-11-218, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.)

PART 12 P ERMANENCY PLANNING

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-58, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this part, are included in the annotations for this part. See the Editor's notes at the beginning of the chapter.

Foster children.

- Former O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-13 and15-11-58 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2,15-11-30,15-11-134, and15-11-200 et seq.), and O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690.1, and49-5-12 were not too vague and amorphous to be enforced by the judiciary and impose specific duties on the state defendants; thus, the federal regulatory scheme embodied in the CSFR process did not relieve the state defendants of the defendants obligation to fulfill the defendants statutory duties to the foster children, nor did the former statute provide a legal excuse for the defendants failure to do so. Kenny A. v. Perdue, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58).

No results found for Georgia Code 15-11-218.