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.
(a) All mediation agreements shall be presented to the juvenile court judge for approval.
(b) The mediation agreement shall be made an order of the court unless, after further hearing, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement is not in the best interests of the child.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-25, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1984–2000 · leading case: Watkins v. Watkins, 466 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1996).
Watkins v. Watkins, 466 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 10ד'" [3] Further, in a case in which a petition to terminate parental rights was based upon allegations under OCGA § 15-11-81(b)(4)(A) [4] that the child was deprived, the Court of Appeals held that, to satisfy due process, the petition had to comply with OCGA § 15-11-25 by…”
In the Interest of S. L. H., 422 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4דThere was no pursuit of, nor ruling on, the federal constitutional claim, so the sole preliminary issue is whether this statute governing criminal procedure applies to proceedings pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-28 on petitions alleging delinquency under OCGA § 15-11-25 in juvenile…”
Smith v. State, 327 S.E.2d 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4ד" OCGA §§ 15-11-25, 15-11-39. The court adjudicates whether the child committed "the delinquent act," not a "crime.”
In the Interest of DRC, 381 S.E.2d 426 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2דThe allegations of the petition merely provide a condensation of the statutory provisions of OCGA § 15-11-81 (a) and (b) (4) (A), rather than setting forth in ordinary and concise language the facts required by OCGA § 15-11-25. Since the State’s petition fails to set forth in…”
Glover v. Scott, 435 S.E.2d 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2דThe fact that Glover had other attendance infractions and had been warned does not constitute evidence in the facts of this case that she was terminated for those other infractions, for it is undisputed that she was not terminated because of those other infractions.”
In the Interest of D. R. C., 401 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2דNeither she nor the child’s putative father supported the child while he was in the temporary custody of the Department of Human Resources, nor paid any child support. We conclude that the petition contained specific allegations of facts indicating both appellant’s history of…”
In the Interest of B. G., 497 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2דOCGA § 15-11-25. The trial court can then allow the children to remain with DFCS upon finding that the children would still be deprived if returned to their mother.”
In the Interest of J. D. M., 369 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דreleased[, pursuant to *288 OCGA § 15-11-21 (a),] and the case is to be prosecuted further other than by informal adjustment, a petition under Code Section 15-11-25 shall be made and presented to the court within 30 days.”
In the Interest of M. D., 503 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2דOCGA §§ 15-11-25; 15-11-39. The court adjudicates whether the child committed the delinquent act, not a crime.”
In the Interest of J. W. H., 538 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2דThese cases stand only for the proposition that there is no statutory requirement under OCGA § 15-11-41 (b) that DFACS make reasonable efforts to reunite the family for at least a year (after a reunification plan is formulated) before seeking to terminate parental rights.”
In the Interest of A. K. M., 510 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4דIndeed, OCGA § 15-11-25 requires only that the petition be verified and contain certain information.”
P. L. A. v. State, 324 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2דContrary to appellant’s contention, OCGA § 15-11-21 (e) does not provide that the petition must be “filed” with the court.”
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.