O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30 (2019)

Rights and duties of legal custodian

✓ 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 legal custodian has the right to physical custody of a child, the right to determine the nature of the care and treatment of such child, including ordinary medical care, and the right and duty to provide for

the care, protection, training, and education and the physical, mental, and moral welfare of such child, subject to the conditions and limitations of the order and to the remaining rights and duties of such child’s parent or guardian.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-30, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For comment on Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979); Sec-

retary of Pub. Welfare v. Institutionalized Juveniles, 442 U.S. 640 (1979), regarding juvenile commitment to state mental hospitals upon application of parents or guardians, see 29 Emory L. J. 517 (1980).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-2901, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-43 and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-13, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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. ‘‘Legal guardian.’’ - Grandmother was not a ‘‘legal guardian’’ of a child within the meaning of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13 or O.C.G.A. § 19-9-22(2). Stills v. Johnson, 272 Ga. 645, 533 S.E.2d 695 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13). Right to consent to adoption of child is one of those residual rights retained by a parent, notwithstanding the transfer of temporary legal custody of the child to another person. Skipper v. Smith, 239 Ga. 854, 238 S.E.2d 917 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2901); O’Neal v. Wilkes, 263 Ga. 850, 439 S.E.2d 490 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-43). Powers and duties of juvenile court. - Having committed a child to the Division of Children and Youth (now Division of Youth Services), which under former Code 1933, § 24A-2701 was self-executing in placing control over the child to the division for two years, or until the child was sooner discharged, or as provided for an extension of the two-year period on motion of the division, it was beyond the power of the trial judge to make further provision at that time in effect retaining jurisdiction over the child

to prevent the mother from gaining physical custody of the child except subject to further order of the court or to require that the child upon release shall be returned to the child treatment center and the physical custody of this court. Mack v. State, 125 Ga. App. 639, 188 S.E.2d 828 (1972) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2901). Visitation rights of a parent of a child in the custody of the Department of Family and Children Services are a residual ‘‘parental tie’’ which is not severed by the mere placement of the child in the temporary custody of the department, without a specific finding as to that right. In re K.B., 188 Ga. App. 199, 372 S.E.2d 476 (1988) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-43). Right to control medical care. - Mother forfeited her right to control her child’s medical care when she lost temporary custody of the child. In the Interest of C.R., 257 Ga. App. 159, 570 S.E.2d 609 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13). Right of parent to object to immunization not found. - After a child has been found to be deprived, the only remaining parental rights under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30) that have been recognized by the appellate courts were the rights to consent to an adoption of the child and to visit with the child; accordingly, the temporary custodian of the child had the authority to have the child immunized over the mother’s religious objection to the immunization. In the Interest of C.R., 257 Ga. App. 159, 570 S.E.2d 609 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13).

Foster children. - Former O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-13, 15-11-58 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-30, 15-11-134, and 15-11-200 et seq.), and O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-690.1, and 49-5-12, which set out in clear detail the rights and services to which foster children are entitled, were not too vague and amorphous to be enforced by the judiciary and imposed specific duties on the state defendants; thus, the federal regulatory scheme embodied in the CSFR process does not relieve the state defendants of their obligation to fulfill their statutory duties to the foster children, nor does it provide a legal excuse for their failure to do so. Kenny A. v. Perdue, No. 1:02-cv-1686-MHS, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27025 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13). Intervention of county agency in adoption proceeding proper. - County Department of Family and Children Services was properly permitted to intervene with regard to a couple’s petition seeking to adopt a child as the child was adjudicated deprived and placed in the temporary custody of the department. While the biological parents’ surrender of their parental rights was the basis for the adoption petition, the department remained the temporary legal custodian of the child and, given that the department’s interest in the child as the temporary legal custodian, the juvenile court did not err by allowing the department to intervene through the department’s objection to the adoption. Sastre v. McDaniel, 293 Ga. App. 671, 667 S.E.2d 896 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13).

Private cause of action. - Following factors are relevant in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one: first, is the plaintiff one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one; third, is it consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for plaintiff? If foster children alleged that certain children services agencies and officials violated former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30), then that section conferred upon the children a private cause of action. Kenny A. v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2003) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13). Trial court erred in requiring a father to prove by clear and convincing proof that changed circumstances warranted modification of an order placing the father’s children with their maternal aunts; the father retained an interest in the children, under former O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-58(i)(1) and 15-11-13 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-30 and 15-11-204), sufficient to support a right to petition for modification, and the father was only required to prove the motion under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-40(b) (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-444 and 15-11-608)by a preponderance of the evidence. In re J. N., 302 Ga. App. 631, 691 S.E.2d 396 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13). Cited in In the Interest of A. H., 332 Ga. App. 590, 774 S.E.2d 163 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Code 1933, § 24A-2901, which was subsequently repealed but was 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. Commitment does not necessarily require surrogate parent be appointed. - There is a distinction be-

tween children who are simply committed to the state for temporary care and supervision and those who are actually ‘‘wards of the state.’’ Commitment of a child to the Division of Youth Services does not per se make a child a ‘‘ward of the state’’ for the purposes of 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. of a surrogate parent. 1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-53 (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-2901).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: In the Interest of C.c., Child., 314 Ga. 446 (Ga. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of C.c., Child., 314 Ga. 446 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 57× “” DFCS related that it sought immunization to facilitate the children’s health care, schooling, and foster placement, and asserted the authority to provide “ordinary medical care” to the children under OCGA § 15-11-30. 4 At the end of the hearing, John interjected that the…”

Wilkins v. Dep't of Human Resources, 337 S.E.2d 20 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 44× “(a minor child born to a woman married to a man other than Wilkins), was entitled to appointed counsel under OCGA § 15-11-30 (b) during a hearing of a petition filed by the Georgia Department of Human Resources (GDHR) to *231 terminate his parental rights to J.”

In the Interest of B. C. P., 493 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “It applied the venerable principle of implication, “in est de jure.”

In the Interest of R. D. F., 466 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 8× “724, 725 (1) ( 215 SE2d 732 ) (1975) or continued for the securing of legal representation, OCGA § 15-11-30 (b), or for reasons within the discretion of the juvenile court.”

In the Interest of A. M. R., 495 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Third, she was not afforded appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings as required by OCGA § 15-11-30. 1. To terminate parental rights under OCGA § 15-11-81 (a), “[t]he trial court must first determine whether there is present clear and convincing evidence of parental…”

In the Interest of T. B. R., 480 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “3 Robison asserts that he was entitled to be represented by legal counsel at the hearings pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-30 (b). While Robison was certainly entitled to retain private counsel, he never requested court-appointed counsel and was not entitled to court-appointed counsel…”

In the Interest of A. M. B., 750 S.E.2d 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Although the right in termination cases now stems from OCGA § 15-11-85 (b) and not OCGA § 15-11-30, the latter root still provides a firm base for government-provided transcripts in deprivation cases.”

In re M. A. F., 334 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 6× “” OCGA § 15-11-30 (a). The appellant was a necessary party to the proceeding, OCGA § 15-11-26 (b), and the summons was required to state that a “party is entitled to counsel in the proceeding and that the court will appoint counsel if the party is unable without undue hardship…”

In the Interest of C. F., 566 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “also claims that the trial court erred by failing, pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-30 (b), to directly contact the juvenile courts of other counties where C.”

In the Interest of L. G., 495 S.E.2d 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, to the extent that the mother is indigent, she will, upon request, be entitled to *155 appointed counsel as provided by OCGA § 15-11-30. Decided January 13, 1998.”

J. E. W. v. State, 349 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “The appellant also puts forth what appears to us to be the rather curious argument that the evidence in this case is insufficient to show that the deceased was even murdered.”

In the Interest of T. D. W., 493 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “321, 323-324 ( 240 SE2d 824 ) (1977); see generally OCGA § 15-11-30 (b). “In Clarke v. Zant, 247 Ga.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— 15-11-30(b) — 3 cases

In the Interest of R. D. F., 466 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 1996). “724, 725 (1) ( 215 SE2d 732 ) (1975) or continued for the securing of legal representation, OCGA § 15-11-30 (b), or for reasons within the discretion of the juvenile court.”

In Re Krc, 510 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).

In Re Cf, 566 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

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.