Law reviews.

- For article discussing venue problems in juvenile court practice and suggesting solutions, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1972). For article, "An Outline of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction with Focus on Child Custody," see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 275 (1973).

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-1101, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-15 and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-29, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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.

County of parent's residence.

- Revision of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Para. VI (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI), providing that venue in juvenile court cases may be determined by the provisions of the Juvenile Court Code of Georgia, removed any constitutional impediment to applying former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-17,15-11-270, and15-11-401) to parental termination proceedings when the parent resides in a different county from that in which an allegedly deprived child is found. In re R.A.S., 249 Ga. 236, 290 S.E.2d 34 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

Action to terminate parental rights on ground of deprivation need not be brought in county of parents' residence. In re S.H., 163 Ga. App. 419, 294 S.E.2d 621 (1982).

County of child's foster home.

- Proceeding to terminate parental rights may be commenced in the county in which the child resides in a foster home. Cain v. Department of Human Resources, 166 Ga. App. 801, 305 S.E.2d 492 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

Because the child was placed into the Department of Family and Children Service's legal custody, a rebuttable presumption arose that the child obtained a Jones County legal residence for the purposes of determining venue; thus, by alleging that the child was in the department's custody, and by setting forth the department's address in Jones County, the department's petition provided sufficient information to establish that the child's residence was in Jones County, making venue therein, proper. In the Interest of A.J.M., 277 Ga. App. 646, 627 S.E.2d 399 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29).

County where parent resides.

- For cases holding that venue for termination proceedings lies in the county where the parent resides, decided under prior constitutional provisions, see Quire v. Clayton County Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 242 Ga. 85, 249 S.E.2d 538 (1978), and Williams v. Department of Human Resources, 150 Ga. App. 610, 258 S.E.2d 288 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1101).

Determining legal residence.

- In determining where a juvenile resides for purposes of venue, it is generally the legal residence that controls. In re A.M.C., 213 Ga. App. 897, 446 S.E.2d 760 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

Since the requirements for venue in a county were met, the fact that the childrens' mother was in the process of moving to another state when the county department of family and children services obtained custody of her children was insufficient to rebut the presumption that the children resided in the county. In re K.M.L., 237 Ga. App. 662, 516 S.E.2d 363 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

Waiver of objection to venue.

- By a parent's actions and inactions, the parent waived the parent's right to object to the venue of termination proceedings. In the Interest of H.D.M., 241 Ga. App. 805, 527 S.E.2d 633 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

In a deprivation proceeding, the court erred in basing venue on the childrens' brief visit to the county where the deprivation petitions were filed because the children were residing and attending school in another county at the time. In re B.G., 238 Ga. App. 227, 518 S.E.2d 451 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-15).

Because a child was born in Lee County and had lived with the child's mother and maternal grandparents in Lee County for ten out of the 16 months of the child's life when a petition alleging deprivation was filed under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29(a) (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-270 and15-11-401), Lee County was the proper venue for the action. In the Interest of C.R., 292 Ga. App. 346, 665 S.E.2d 39 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29).

Service on mother in county of residence sufficient.

- Service of process on the mother in the county of this state in which the mother of an illegitimate child resides is sufficient to give the county juvenile court jurisdiction over both the mother and the child regardless of whether there was a "detention" of the child and in spite of the fact that a welfare worker obtained possession of the child outside of the state. Sanchez v. Walker County Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 138 Ga. App. 49, 225 S.E.2d 441, rev'd on other grounds, 237 Ga. 406, 229 S.E.2d 66 (1976) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1101).

Venue exists despite absence of child.

- If a particular county is the residence of the child and of the child's mother, venue properly exists there for temporary custody actions even if the child was not personally present within the boundaries of that county on the date of the filing of the petition to the court for temporary custody. Sanchez v. Walker County Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 138 Ga. App. 49, 225 S.E.2d 441, rev'd on other grounds, 237 Ga. 406, 229 S.E.2d 66 (1976) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1101).

Venue in county of child's residence and where child born.

- Requirements for proving that venue was properly in Cobb County were met because a mother was residing in Cobb County when her child was born and when the underlying proceeding alleging deprivation commenced and that the child remained in the custody of Cobb County Department of Family and Children Services through the time the juvenile court entered the court's deprivation and non-reunification order. In re R. B., 309 Ga. App. 407, 710 S.E.2d 611 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29).

Challenge to court's jurisdiction unsuccessful.

- Although former Code 1933, § 79-404 (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-2-4) provided that the domicile of an illegitimate child shall be that of his or her mother, yet, where the plea to the jurisdiction alleged "this court has accepted jurisdiction and custody of the minor child . . . and is holding said child subject to the order of this court," which clearly showed that the child was before the court, and there was no allegation showing the domicile of the mother, who was present in court, or any other reason why the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction, it was not error to overrule the plea. Springstead v. Cook, 215 Ga. 154, 109 S.E.2d 508 (1959) (decided under Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 87, § 3).

Child was residing in Cobb County when an underlying proceeding alleging deprivation commenced and had remained in the custody of Cobb County Department of Family and Children Services through the time a termination of parental rights order was entered; accordingly, requirements for venue in Cobb County were met. In re R. J. D. B., 305 Ga. App. 888, 700 S.E.2d 898 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29).

There was sufficient evidence that venue was proper in Douglas County, Georgia, in a deprivation proceeding, as the Douglas County Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) had been involved with the family for some time; the subject child's parent lived in a shelter in Douglas County in May and June of 2010, and at the time the deprivation petition was filed the child was in the custody of the Douglas County DFCS, where the child remained through the entry of the deprivation order. In the Interest of D. S., 316 Ga. App. 296, 728 S.E.2d 890 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-29).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants, § 27 et seq. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, § 40 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 180 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 11.

Law reviews.

- For article discussing due process in juvenile court procedures in California and Georgia, in light of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), see 8 Ga. St. B. J. 9 (1971). For article, "Child Custody - Jurisdiction and Procedure," see 35 Emory L. J. 291 (1986). For comment on grandparents' visitation rights in Georgia, see 29 Emory L. J. 1083 (1980).

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-25, pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-38.1, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-82, and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-95, 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.

Juvenile petition must satisfy "due process."

- Although a juvenile petition does not have to be drafted with the exactitude of a criminal accusation, the petition must satisfy "due process." T.L.T. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Since the state's petition failed to set forth in ordinary and concise language the facts demonstrating the nature of the parent's alleged failure to provide proper parental care or control, the parent lacked sufficient information to enable the parent to prepare a defense, and this amounted to a denial of due process. In re D.R.C., 191 Ga. App. 278, 381 S.E.2d 426 (1989) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-25).

To meet constitutional requirement of due process the language of a juvenile petition must pass two tests: (1) the petition must contain sufficient factual details to inform the juvenile of the nature of the offense; and (2) the petition must provide data adequate to enable the accused to prepare a defense. T.L.T. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 895, 212 S.E.2d 650 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Allege with particularity.

- Due process requires that the petition alleging delinquency must set forth with specificity the alleged violation of law either in the language of the particular section, or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the child and the child's parents or guardian. D.P. v. State, 129 Ga. App. 680, 200 S.E.2d 499 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Petition filed alleging delinquency, deprivation, or unruliness must set forth alleged misconduct with particularity. A.C.G. v. State, 131 Ga. App. 156, 205 S.E.2d 435 (1974) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Insufficient notice to juvenile of alleged offense.

- If a juvenile is brought to trial on a petition alleging delinquency based on a violation of former Code 1933, § 26-1601 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1) but was adjudicated delinquent for violating former Code 1933, § 26-1806 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-8-7), there was insufficient notice to the juvenile of the offense alleged to be the basis of the juvenile's delinquency and the trial court must be reversed. D.P. v. State, 129 Ga. App. 680, 200 S.E.2d 499 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Statement of custody irrelevant if jurisdiction otherwise exists.

- If jurisdiction otherwise existed, such as if the action was brought in the county of the residence of both mother and son, then the requirement in paragraph (4) of former Code 1933, § 24A-1603 had no relevancy to the right of the trial court to handle the case. Sanchez v. Walker County Dep't of Family & Children Servs., 138 Ga. App. 49, 225 S.E.2d 441, rev'd on other grounds, 237 Ga. 406, 229 S.E.2d 66 (1976) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

Assumption of jurisdiction linked to authorized petition.

- An order for detention clearly did not meet the requirements of a petition filed pursuant to former Code 1933, § 24A-1603 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-152,15-11-280,15-11-390,15-11-420,15-11-422, and15-11-522) to commence proceedings under former Code 1933, § 24A-1601 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-420), and the assumption of jurisdiction by the juvenile court is linked to the authorized petition. Hartley v. Clack, 239 Ga. 113, 236 S.E.2d 63 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-1603).

In a hearing on parental custody in a divorce action, the trial court erred in awarding custody of the parties' minor children to the Department of Family and Children Services based upon findings that the children were deprived and the parents unfit because the mother had no notice that the superior court judge might award custody of the children to a third party based upon standards of deprivation. Watkins v. Watkins, 266 Ga. 269, 466 S.E.2d 860 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-25).

Preparation and verification.

- Because counsel for the Department of Children & Family Services stated to the court that counsel prepared the termination petition, that the petition was reviewed, verified, and then signed by counsel the next day, this was sufficient to comply with the requirements of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-25 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-152,15-11-280,15-11-390,15-11-422, and15-11-522). In re A.K.M., 235 Ga. App. 853, 510 S.E.2d 611 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-25).

Service by correctional officer upon incarcerated father.

- Personal service of a summons and a petition of deprivation by a correctional officer upon an incarcerated father was sufficient as the service procedures in the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, were not adopted nor were binding on the juvenile court, and the correctional officer was acting under the direction of the court for the purposes of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-39.1(c) (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-161,15-11-282,15-11-400,15-11-424, and15-11-531). In the Interest of A.J.M., 277 Ga. App. 646, 627 S.E.2d 399 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-38.1)

Standing.

- Child's great aunt and uncle had standing to bring a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's father and mother. In re J.J., 225 Ga. App. 682, 484 S.E.2d 681 (1997) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82).

Compliance shown.

- Because orders entered by the juvenile court before the Department of Human Resources (DHR) filed its termination petition related to that petition, specifically declaring the child to be deprived and that the child had been in the temporary legal custody of the DHR for over 14 months with no indication that the conditions of deprivation will be alleviated in the future, the court either substantially complied with or satisfied by implication the endorsement requirements showing that the filing of the petition was in the best interest of the public and the child. In the Interest of V.D.S., 284 Ga. App. 582, 644 S.E.2d 422 (2007), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 635 (Ga. 2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-95).

Parent notified of consequences of termination order.

- Terms which sufficiently apprised father of the consequences of an order terminating parental rights complied with subsection (c) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-280). In re A.M.S., 208 Ga. App. 328, 430 S.E.2d 626 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1128, 114 S. Ct. 1095, 127 L. Ed. 2d 409 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82).

State's petition failed to comply with subsection (c) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-280) since the petition contained the first sentence of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-80 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-261) almost verbatim but did not provide any notice of the effects of the second sentence of that section. In re D.R.C., 191 Ga. App. 278, 381 S.E.2d 426 (1989) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82).

Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the mother and the subject matter of the termination of her parental rights because no original petition was filed and personally served. In re C.I.W., 229 Ga. App. 481, 494 S.E.2d 291 (1997) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-82).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, § 79 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 191 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 21.