O.C.G.A.
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.
In all proceedings under this article, the standard of proof to be adduced to terminate parental rights shall be by clear and convincing evidence.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-303, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-86, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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. Standard of review for the termina-
tion of parental rights is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the parent, a rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the biological parent’s rights should have been lost. State v. O’Neill, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213 (2019) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-86). Cited in In the Interest of S. P., 336 Ga. App. 488, 784 S.E.2d 846 (2016).
Notes of Decisions
In the Interest Of: S. P., a Child (Mother), 784 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 15-11-303. The mother argues that there was not clear and convincing evidence of the following factors: that S.”
In the Interest of E. G. L. B., 805 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “294, § 5-1 (“This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2014, and shall apply to all offenses which occur and juvenile proceedings commenced on and after such date.”
In the INTEREST OF C.A.B. Et Al., Child.., 819 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “If any of the statutory grounds for termination are met, the court shall then consider whether termination is in the children's best interest.”
In the Interest of C. J. v. Et Al., Child., 777 S.E.2d 692 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1 See OCGA § 15-11-303 (“In all proceedings under this article, the standard of proof tobe adduced to terminate parental rights shall be by clear and convincing evidence.”
In the Interest of D. W. Et Al., Child., 798 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-11-303. Consequently, [o]n appeal from a juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found clear and convincing evidence…”
In re Interest of B.R.J., 810 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" OCGA § 15-11-303. 1. The mother contends that the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because DFCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the children were "presently dependent" and "continue to be dependent" due to lack of proper parental…”
In the Interest of E. G. L. B., Child. (Father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “”9 Indeed, as our Supreme Court has emphasized, “[o]ne who is subject to the termination of parental rights cannot be equated to an individual who faces an interruption of custody; termination is a much more severe measure.”
In the Interest of B. R. J. Child. (Mother) (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-11-303. 1. The mother contends that the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because DFCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the children were “presently dependent” and “continue to be dependent” due to lack of proper parental…”
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.