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

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-26 (2019)

Best interests of child

✓ 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

Whenever a best interests determination is required, the court shall consider and evaluate all of the factors affecting the best interests of the child in the context of such child’s age and developmental needs. Such factors shall include: (1) The physical safety and welfare of such child, including food, shelter, health, and clothing; (2) The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between such child and each parent or person available to care for such child; (3) The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between such child and his or her siblings, half siblings, and stepsiblings and the residence of such other children; (4) Such child’s need for permanence, including such child’s need for stability and continuity of relationships with his or her parent,

siblings, other relatives, and any other person who has provided significant care to such child; (5) Such child’s sense of attachments, including his or her sense of security and familiarity, and continuity of affection for such child; (6) The capacity and disposition of each parent or person available to care for such child to give him or her love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and rearing of such child; (7) The home environment of each parent or person available to care for such child considering the promotion of such child’s nurturance and safety rather than superficial or material factors; (8) The stability of the family unit and the presence or absence of support systems within the community to benefit such child; (9) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (10) The home, school, and community record and history of such child, as well as any health or educational special needs of such child; (11) Such child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends; (12) Such child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious; (13) The least disruptive placement alternative for such child; (14) The uniqueness of every family and child; (15) The risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; (16) Such child’s wishes and long-term goals; (17) The preferences of the persons available to care for such child; (18) Any evidence of family violence, substance abuse, criminal history, or sexual, mental, or physical child abuse in any current, past, or considered home for such child; (19) Any recommendation by a court appointed custody evaluator or guardian ad litem; and (20) Any other factors considered by the court to be relevant and proper to its determination.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-26, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Parentage Prenups and Midnups,’’ see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 343 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Denial of petition to legitimate child. - Juvenile court did not abuse the court’s discretion in denying the putative father’s petition to legitimate the child because, although the father was not seeking custody of the child, the juvenile court did not err in basing the court’s ruling on a determination of whether the father was fit to assume immediate custody of the child as the juvenile court

properly considered the father’s interest in caring for the child; the father’s ability to support the child if placed in the father’s care; and the child’s current placement as part of the best interests analysis under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-26. In the Interest of J. M., 337 Ga. App. 811, 788 S.E.2d 888 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1860, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 120 (Ga. 2017).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: In the Interest of R. D. F., 466 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of R. D. F., 466 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 146× “In stark contrast to OCGA §§ 17-7-170 and 17-7-171, there is no explicit language in OCGA § 15-11-26 which mandates that the failure to comply with the statutory time limits provided therein will result in an adjudication of the juvenile's non-delinquency by operation of law.”
In the Interest of M. D. H., 793 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 20× “294 ( 466 SE2d 572 ) (1996), which was decided before the enactment of OCGA § 15-11-521 and held that the failure to comply with former OCGA § 15-11-26 (a), which established a deadline for setting the adjudicatory hearing in juvenile cases, resulted in dismissal of the case…”
In the Interest of L. A. E., 447 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 56× “filed a motion to dismiss the petition because he was still in detention and the adjudicatory hearing had not been set within ten days of the filing of the petition as required by OCGA § 15-11-26 (a). The court denied that motion, finding that OCGA § 15-11-26 (a) had been…”
In the Interest of E. M., 819 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “See OCGA § 15-11-26 (2) ("[t]he love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between such child and each parent"); OCGA § 15-11-26 (4) (the "[s]uch child's need for permanence"); OCGA § 15-11-26 (6) ("[t]he capacity and disposition of each parent or person available to…”
In the Interest of B. D. O., a Child., 807 S.E.2d 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “See OCGA § 15-11-26 (19) (permitting court to consider recommendation by a court appointed custody evaluator or guardian ad litem in determining best interest of the child).”
In the Interest of M. D. C., 447 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 28× “asserts that the trial court's determination that OCGA § 15-11-26 (a) required only that a hearing date be set within ten days, regardless of the date of the hearing was in error.”
In the Interest Of: M. D. H., a Child, 779 S.E.2d 433 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “In construing a related statute in Georgia’s former Juvenile Code, 1 former OCGA § 15-11-26, 2 our Supreme Court held that former OCGA § 15-11-26 (a) did not constitute a speedy trial demand and, thus, violations of its provisions should not result in dismissal of the case with…”
In the Interest Of: E. G. M., a Child, 798 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 15-11-26 (non-exhaustive listing of 20 factors for consideration, including the mental and physical health of the child, evidence of substance abuse in the home, and any recommendation by a guardian ad litem). Here, the psychologist noted that, based upon their…”
In the Interest of L. A. E., 462 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 18× “filed a motion claiming that dismissal of the petition was mandated because the juvenile court did not fix an adjudicatory hearing on the petition in accordance with OCGA § 15-11-26 (a). The juvenile court denied the motion, ruling that the proceedings fixed on March 24 and…”
Johnson v. State, 358 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 15-11-26 (a) specifies that the court shall fix a date for an adjudicatory hearing on a petition alleging delinquency not later than 10 days from the date of the filing of the petition if the child is in detention.”
In the Interest of M. O. B., 378 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “Appellant based his motion to dismiss solely upon an alleged failure to comply with the time requirements of OCGA § 15-11-26 (a). Compare Ould v. State, 186 Ga.”
Watkins v. Watkins, 466 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 4× “If the child is detained before the hearing, the parents must be notified of the allegations of deprivations, OCGA § 15-11-25, and the hearing on the deprivation petition must occur within certain deadlines, OCGA § 15-11-26. A superior court clearly has similar emergency avenues…”
Show all 62 citing cases →
— 15-11-26(a) — 2 cases
In the Interest of R. D. F., 466 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 1996). “In stark contrast to OCGA §§ 17-7-170 and 17-7-171, there is no explicit language in OCGA § 15-11-26 which mandates that the failure to comply with the statutory time limits provided therein will result in an adjudication of the juvenile's non-delinquency by operation of law.”
In Interest of Cw, 490 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
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.