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.
(a) Whenever an order of disposition incorporates a reunification plan and the residence of the parent is not in the county of the court with jurisdiction or the residence of the parent changes to a county other than the county of the court with jurisdiction, the court may transfer jurisdiction to the juvenile court of the residence of the parent to whom the reunification plan is directed. (b) Within 30 days of the filing of the transfer order, the transferring court shall provide the receiving court with certified copies of the adjudication order, the order of disposition, the order of transfer, the case plan, and any other court documents deemed necessary by the transferring court to enable the receiving court to assume jurisdiction over the matter. (c) The transferring court shall retain jurisdiction until the receiving court acknowledges acceptance of the transfer. (d) Compliance with this Code section shall terminate jurisdiction in the transferring court and confer jurisdiction in the receiving court.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-33, 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of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-30.5, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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. Counsel not ineffective for failure to file transfer motion. - Given the
children services department’s opposition to transferring a mother’s reunification plan to the county where the mother was living, and given that the transfer was not mandatory under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30.5 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-33), the mother’s attorney was not deficient in failing to file a transfer motion. In the Interest of C.G., 279 Ga. App. 730, 632 S.E.2d 472 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-30.5).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
92
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
In the Interest of M. D., 503 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
In the Interest of M. D., 503 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 20× “to serve in restrictive custody for two consecutive periods of 90 days at a Youth Development Center, to serve 60 hours of community service, to pay supervision fees, and to abide by a 6:00 p.m. curfew. On February 18,1998, M.”
In Re Jcp, 307 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “See OCGA §§ 15-11-33 (b) (1) (Code Ann. § 24A-2201); 15-11-34 (a) (2) (A) (Code Ann.”
In the Interest of J. T. M., 409 S.E.2d 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “The separate appeals, which proceed on identical enumerations of error raising only the general *637 grounds, are consolidated. In juvenile proceedings, "the standard of proof on charges of a criminal nature is the same as that used in criminal proceedings against adults proof…”
In the Interest of S. H., 469 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “1 A hearing was held pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-33 (a), and the juvenile court found that S.”
In the Interest of J. P., 470 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 12× “, it shall dismiss the petition and order the child discharged.”
In the Interest of S. S., 501 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “OCGA §§ 15-11-33 (b); 15-11-34 (a) (2) (C); In the Interest of A.”
Watkins v. Watkins, 466 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1996).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 15-11-33 (b). Blackburn, 249 Ga. at 691-692, 694 ; OCGA § 19-7-1.”
In the Interest of JO, 382 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “was adjudicated delinquent and in need of treatment and rehabilitation, OCGA § 15-11-33, as the result of an assault upon the victim with a shotgun, OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2).”
In the Interest of MJF, 383 S.E.2d 173 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Contrary to appellant’s assertion the sufficiency of the evidence is not reviewed in this court under the “any evidence” standard. “Where a juvenile is charged with an offense which for an adult would be a crime, the standard of proof in the lower court is ‘beyond a reasonable…”
In the Interest of J. L. Y., 361 S.E.2d 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The father also contends that the trial court failed to make the specific factual findings to support the required legal standards for termination, as required by OCGA §§ 15-11-33 & 15-11-91. Part of his complaint is that several of the orders with which he failed to comply are…”
In Re Ted, 312 S.E.2d 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “In an earlier decision, we remanded this case to the trial court with direction that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law made pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-33 (a) (Code Ann. § 24A-2201) be reduced to writing.”
In the Interest of H. L. T., 298 S.E.2d 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “§ 24A-2201 (now OCGA § 15-11-33 (b)). In Blackburn v. Blackburn, 249 Ga.”
— 15-11-33(a) — 1 case
In the Interest of J. P., 470 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
“, it shall dismiss the petition and order the child discharged.”
— 15-11-33(b) — 3 cases
Watkins v. Watkins, 466 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1996).
“OCGA § 15-11-33 (b). Blackburn, 249 Ga. at 691-692, 694 ; OCGA § 19-7-1.”
— 15-11-33(b)(1) — 5 cases
In Re Jv, 526 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Da, 524 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Jwh, 538 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Dek, 512 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re Bmb, 527 S.E.2d 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
— 15-11-33(c) — 2 cases
In Re Jm, 513 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
— 15-11-33(d) — 8 cases
In Re Cns, 545 S.E.2d 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Dt, 555 S.E.2d 215 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Fc, 549 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Eg, 726 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
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.