O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-23 (2019)

Stay of proceeding pending mediation; time limitations

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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) Upon issuing a referral to mediation the court may stay the proceeding.

(b) Mediation shall occur as soon as practicable and be scheduled within 30 days of the order referring the matter to mediation unless the time frame is extended by the court.

(c) The court may extend the timeline for scheduling a mediation for an additional 30 days.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-23, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1988–1994 · leading case: In the Interest of L. A. E., 447 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
In the Interest of L. A. E., 447 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “A petition alleging murder (OCGA § 16-5-1) and probation violation (OCGA § 15-11-42 (b)) was filed on March 24, pursuant to OCGA §§ 15-11-23 to 15-11-25. On that date also, copy of the summons and process and service of the same was filed, showing that a hearing was set by the…”
In the Interest of L. T. W., 439 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “In his motion to dismiss, appellant argued that no probable cause hearing was held with respect to one of the charges of armed robbery in violation of OCGA § 15-11-23. OCGA § 15-11-23 requires that a court-authorized person determine and endorse upon the petition that it is in…”
In the Interest of M. D. S., 440 S.E.2d 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “The natural mother first contends the absence of an endorsement on the deprivation petition that the filing of the petition is in the best interest of the public and the children as is required by OCGA § 15-11-23 is fatal to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.”
Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 707 F. Supp. 1318 (N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “After conferring with her supervisor, defendant Terry, and without any further investigation, defendant Dempsey then prepared and presented to the Juvenile Court of Cobb County an ex parte deprivation petition pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-11-23, et seq. After hearing the matter,…”
In the Interest of W. R. S., 445 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-11-23. OCGA § 15-11-91 makes the provisions of Article 1 applicable to proceedings to terminate parental rights under Article 2, “unless in conflict with this article.”
Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 692 F. Supp. 1354 (N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “As a result of this conversation, defendant Dempsey prepared and presented to the Juvenile Court of Cobb County an ex parte deprivation petition pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-11-23, et seq. Defendant Walker’s Statement of Material Facts, H 9; Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts,…”
Thompson v. State, 400 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. 1991). “No proceedings were commenced under OCGA § 15-11-11 or § 15-11-23. The juvenile court did not acquire jurisdiction when it entered the detention order; the superior court obtained jurisdiction when the appellant was indicted.”
In the Interest of D. H. C., 365 S.E.2d 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The record reflects that the petition filed by the appellant did not contain the endorsement of “the court or a person authorized by the court” stating that the filing of the petition was in the best interest of the public and child, as required by OCGA § 15-11-23.”
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.