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

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-240 (2019)

Appointment of permanent guardian; jurisdiction; findings

✓ 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) In addition to the jurisdiction to appoint guardians pursuant to Code Section 15-11-13, the juvenile court shall be vested with jurisdiction to appoint a permanent guardian for a child adjudicated as a dependent child in accordance with this article. Prior to the entry of such an order, the court shall: (1) Find that reasonable efforts to reunify such child with his or her parents would be detrimental to such child or find that the living parents of such child have consented to the permanent guardianship; (2) Find that termination of parental rights and adoption is not in the best interests of such child; (3) Find that the proposed permanent guardian can provide a safe and permanent home for such child; (4) Find that the appointment of a permanent guardian for such child is in the best interests of such child and that the individual chosen as such child’s permanent guardian is the individual most appropriate to be such child’s permanent guardian taking into consideration the best interests of the child; and (5) If such child is 14 years of age or older, find that the appointment of a permanent guardian for such child is in the best interests of such child and that the individual chosen by such child as the child’s permanent guardian is the individual most appropriate to be such child’s permanent guardian taking into consideration the best interests of the child. (b) The court may enter an order of support on behalf of a child against the parents of such child in accordance with paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 15-11-212.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-240, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Annotations

Cross references. - Power of judge of probate court to appoint guardian for mi-

nor, § 29-2-14. Notice requirements relating to appointment of guardians for minors by judges of the probate court generally, § 29-2-17.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-302, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-6 and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-30.1, which were subsequently repealed but were 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. Jurisdiction of juvenile court in transferred custody proceeding. - In a custody proceeding transferred from the superior court, the juvenile court was authorized to issue an order restraining the future disclosure of information contained in the juvenile court’s files and records and to punish for contempt any past unauthorized disclosure of that material. In re Burton, 271 Ga. 491, 521 S.E.2d 568 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6). Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the transfer of a father’s petition for custody from Gwinnett County, Georgia, to Douglas County, Georgia because the ‘‘complaint for custody’’ that the father filed in Gwinnett County fairly was read as a petition to modify, vacate, or revoke the permanent guardianship, a petition over which the Juvenile Court of Douglas County had exclusive jurisdiction under the circumstances. In the Interest of M. F., 298 Ga. 138, 780 S.E.2d 291 (2015). Notice and hearing requirements of Juvenile Code mandatory. - Juvenile court committed reversible error in granting the children’s paternal grandparents custody and guardianship of the children because the court failed to follow the statutory mandates outlined in the Juvenile Code as the mother did not consent to transfer of permanent guardianship and no guardianship petition was filed and provided to the mother with notice of proceedings. In the Interest of J. C., 350 Ga. App. 34, 827 S.E.2d 717 (2019).

Adoption, not guardianship, in child’s best interest. - Evidence authorized a juvenile court’s finding that the termination of a parent’s parental rights and the award of the child’s permanent custody to DFCS to place for adoption with the child’s foster family were in the child’s best interest; there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s denial of the parent’s request that the child’s grandmother be appointed guardian. The grandmother had already been determined unsuitable. In the Interest of S. P., 336 Ga. App. 488, 784 S.E.2d 846 (2016). Appointment of permanent guardian proper. - Trial court was authorized to conclude that the permanent guardian demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment of a permanent guardian would be in the child’s best interest as the mother had not completed her case plan, the child had experienced chronic neglect, and the mother lacked the necessary skills to meet the child’s severe needs and ensure she received the essential services she was entitled to. In the Interest of K. G., 344 Ga. App. 674, 811 S.E.2d 451 (2018). Award of permanent guardianship affirmed. - Award of permanent guardianship to the aunt was affirmed because the parent gave no reason to believe that any objection to taking judicial notice of the deprivation order would have had any merit, nor did the parent identify specific evidence that the parent would have brought forward to challenge the earlier deprivation order. In the Interest of L. B., 319 Ga. App. 173, 735 S.E.2d 162 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30.1). Guardian’s petition for permanent guardianship was properly granted as reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the mother would be detrimental to the child because the child was born with

Down Syndrome and a congenital heart defect, and had special needs; the mother made no efforts to obtain support or to prepare for the child’s birth, even though the child would require services immediately; the mother was unable to get along with the child’s service providers to the point that the providers did not want to continue providing services to the child; and the mother lacked the necessary skills to be able to meet the child’s severe needs and the ability to ensure that the child received the services to which the

child was entitled. In the Interest of K. G., 343 Ga. App. 345, 807 S.E.2d 70 (2017). Guardianship of a child under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-240 was upheld based on evidence specifically showing, in light of the child’s diagnosed disorders, continued uncertainty about the child’s living situation and guardianship, and the mother’s history of drug use and current lack of established, long-term stability and sobriety. In the Interest of J. W., 346 Ga. App. 443, 816 S.E.2d 409 (2018).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-302 and pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-6, which were subsequently repealed but were 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. Jurisdiction to appoint guardians for children. - Former statute implicitly recognized that courts other than juvenile courts had jurisdiction to appoint guardians for children. 1976 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U76-15 (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-302). Support proceedings. - Subsection (b) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15) authorized the superior court to transfer to the juvenile court support cases not involving a question of paternity as well as those support proceedings originating from a court-established support unit in the judicial circuit. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-7 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6). Superior court may not transfer a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support

Act proceeding to a juvenile court under subsection (b) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15). 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-7 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6). Paternity questions. - Since no provision under subsection (b) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15) would permit the transfer of paternity questions to a juvenile court, no case in which paternity was involved may be transferred under that statute by a superior court to a juvenile court. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-7 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6). Permanent custody determination upon divorce decree. - When a superior court transfers the question of custody determination to a juvenile court pursuant to subsection (b) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15), the juvenile court may make only a temporary custody determination pending the outcome of the divorce action; but if the divorce decree is entered the juvenile court can then make a permanent custody determination. 1994 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U94-1 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, § 5 et seq. 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants, § 27 et seq. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, § 39 et seq. C.J.S. - 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 180 et

seq. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, § 366 et seq. U.L.A. - Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 3. ALR. - Parent’s involuntary confinement, or failure to care for child as result

thereof, as evincing neglect, unfitness, or the like in dependency or divestiture proceeding, 79 A.L.R.3d 417.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: in the Interest of M.F., a Child, 780 S.E.2d 291 (Ga. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in the Interest of M.F., a Child, 780 S.E.2d 291 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 8× “Nevertheless, juvenile courts have original jurisdiction of proceedings under OCGA § 15-11-240 et seq. for permanent guardianships.”
In the Interest Of: S. P., a Child (Mother), 784 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 15-11-240 (a). To appoint the grandmother as S.”
In re Interest of K. G., 807 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “2d 162 (2012), the mother argues that, before determining whether reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and child would be detrimental to the child under OCGA § 15-11-240 (a) (1), the juvenile court was required to consider four factors: (1) [whether the mother] unjustifiably…”
In the Interest Of: J.M.L. , a Child, 784 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “’s best interest in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of OCGA § 15-11-240 (a) (2).” Although Huso bases this argument on Georgia’s new Juvenile Code, the former Juvenile Code actually applies to this case, as noted above.”
In Re J. W., a Child (Mother), 816 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “2 OCGA § 15-11-240 (a) (1). 3 See In the Interest of K.”
In the Interest of K. G., a Child, 811 S.E.2d 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Prior to the entry of such an order, the court shall: (1) Find that reasonable efforts to reunify such child with his or her parents would be detrimental to such child or find that the living parents of such child have consented to the permanent guardianship; (2) Find that…”
In the Interest of A. H., a Child (Father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “to the maternal grandparents, arguing that the juvenile court failed to make the findings required by OCGA § 15-11-240 and that there was no showing that the permanent guardianship was in A.”
In re J. C., 827 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “The Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services (the "Department"), the appellee in this matter, "agrees that the juvenile court committed reversible error in granting the children's paternal grandparents custody and guardianship of the children because it failed…”
In the Interest of J. C., Child. (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “children’s paternal grandparents custody and guardianship of the children because it failed to follow the statutory mandates outlined in OCGA §§ 15-11-240, 15-11-241 and 15-11-243.”
In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 10× “But she has not shown error in this regard. The juvenile court found facts based on the testimony of the witnesses.”
In the Interest of K. G., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “735 SE2d 162 ) (2012), the mother argues that, before determining whether reasonable efforts to reunify the 2 mother and child would be detrimental to the child under OCGA § 15-11-240 (a) (1), the juvenile court was required to consider four factors: (1) [whether the mother]…”
In the Interest Of: K. G. v. a Child (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “See OCGA § 15-11-240 (a). The court also required the parents to pay 2 child support, among other requirements, and granted them scheduled phone calls and supervised visitation with the child.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— 15-11-240(a)(1) — 2 cases
In the Interest of K. N. D. B., a Child (Father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “But she has not shown error in this regard. The juvenile court found facts based on the testimony of the witnesses.”
— 15-11-240(a)(2) — 1 case
In the Interest of K. N. D. B., a Child (Father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
— 15-11-240(a)(4) — 1 case
In the Interest of A. A., a Child (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “But she has not shown error in this regard. The juvenile court found facts based on the testimony of the witnesses.”
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.