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

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-35 (2019)

Appeals

✓ 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

In all cases of final judgments of the juvenile court, appeals shall be taken to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the same manner as appeals from the superior court. However, no such judgment or order shall be superseded or modified except in the discretion of the trial court; rather, the judgment or order of the court shall stand until reversed or modified by the reviewing court. The appeal of an order granting a petition to terminate parental rights shall stay an adoption proceeding related to the child who is the subject of such order until such order becomes final by the conclusion of appellate proceedings or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. Except for proceedings in connection with an adoption, the court shall continue to conduct hearings and issue orders in accordance with this chapter while an appeal in a case is pending.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-35, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2018, p. 935, § 1/SB 131. The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, inserted ‘‘or modified’’ in the middle of the second sentence and added the third and fourth sentences.

Annotations

Cross references. - Appeals and supersedeas, Uniform Rules for the Juvenile Courts of Georgia, Rule 19.1 et seq.

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 annual survey of law on appellate practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 25 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-11 and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-3, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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.

Juveniles are granted same rights of appeal as are possessed by adults. J.J. v. State, 135 Ga. App. 660, 218 S.E.2d 668 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). ‘‘Final judgments’’ defined. - Former Code 1933, § 24A-3801 provided for appeals ‘‘in all cases of final judgments of a juvenile court judge,’’ without defining ‘‘final judgments.’’ Former Code 1933, § 6-701 (see now O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34) pro-

vided for appeals ‘‘[w]here the judgment is final - that is to say - where the cause is no longer pending in the court below.’’ J.T.M. v. State, 142 Ga. App. 635, 236 S.E.2d 764 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). Order of a juvenile court adjudicating a juvenile delinquent and transferring the matter to another juvenile court for disposition was a final order and was appealable without the need for a certificate of immediate review. In re T.L.C., 266 Ga. 407, 467 S.E.2d 885 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Transferral order is final and therefore appealable since the order operates to transfer the case to the superior court, after which the cause is no longer pending in ‘‘the court below,’’ the juvenile court. J.T.M. v. State, 142 Ga. App. 635, 236 S.E.2d 764 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). Judgment or order stands until reversed or modified. - Even though a transfer order was on appeal at the time the defendant was indicted, the order remained in effect at that time, and the proceedings which occurred in the superior court, pursuant to the transfer order which had not been superseded, including the indictment, were valid. Rocha v. State, 234 Ga. App. 48, 506 S.E.2d 192 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Transfer of child custody case is continuation of that proceeding. Thus, a transfer order in a habeas corpus-child custody proceeding is not final and hence is not appealable without a certificate of immediate review. Fulton County Dep’t of Family & Children Servs. v. Perkins, 244 Ga. 237, 259 S.E.2d 427 (1978) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). Grant or denial of supersedeas. - Juvenile court, unlike a superior court dealing with the same subject matter, has the discretion to grant or deny supersedeas even though the case in the juvenile court emanated from a superior court. Elder v. Elder, 184 Ga. App. 167, 361 S.E.2d 46 (1987) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Order denying petition subject to review. - Order denying the petition to

vacate the order committing the juvenile is a judicial order, subject to judicial review. Rossi v. Price, 237 Ga. 651, 229 S.E.2d 429 (1976) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). Court of appeals was without jurisdiction to entertain the state’s appeal of a dismissal of a juvenile court petition. In re J.H., 228 Ga. App. 154, 491 S.E.2d 209 (1997) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Order holding all charges in abeyance during a period of good behavior was not a final judgment of adjudication and disposition on allegations contained in the petition. In re M.T., 223 Ga. App. 615, 478 S.E.2d 428 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Adjudication order alone is not final, appealable judgment. - Adjudication order alone, without a dispositional order following a dispositional hearing under former Code 1933, § 24A-2401 was not a final, appealable judgment under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-35), nor was it made one by the provisions of former Code 1933, § 6-701 (see now O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34). M.K.H. v. State, 132 Ga. App. 143, 207 S.E.2d 645 (1974) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801); In re G.C.S., 186 Ga. App. 291, 367 S.E.2d 103 (1988) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-64). Indigent parent entitled to paupered transcript for use in appeal. - Indigent parent, whose parental rights have been terminated by an order of a juvenile court on a petition filed by an agency of the state, is entitled to a paupered transcript of the proceeding in the juvenile court for use in appealing the decision of that court. Nix v. Department of Human Resources, 236 Ga. 794, 225 S.E.2d 306 (1976) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-3801). Delinquency adjudication. - Defendant juvenile’s appeal of an order denying a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify the delinquent adjudication was proper because the denial of the motion was a final judgment and was directly appealable; therefore, the defendant could appeal the ruling on disposition as well as on the original finding of delinquency. An order denying a motion under O.C.G.A.

§ 15-11-40(b) seeking a modification based on changed circumstances in a delinquency matter is a final judgment directly appealable under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-34(a)(1) and 15-11-3. In the Interest of J. L. K., 302 Ga. App. 844, 691 S.E.2d 892 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-3). Denial of motion to modify in child deprivation proceeding. - Phrase ‘‘child custody cases’’ within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(11) does not include a child deprivation proceeding in which a custody order has been entered; however, the decision to terminate reunification services is a final judgment directly appealable under O.C.G.A.

§§ 5-6-34(a)(1) and 15-11-3. In re J. N., 302 Ga. App. 631, 691 S.E.2d 396 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-3). Juvenile court did not err in dismissing a juvenile’s motion to modify the commitment order on the basis that the purpose of rehabilitation was not being served because the motion was not accompanied by a written recommendation from the juvenile’s Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice counselor or placement supervisor; thus, O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-32 and 15-11-602 barred the juvenile court from modifying the commitment order as requested. In the Interest of D. H., 332 Ga. App. 274, 772 S.E.2d 70 (2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, § 120 et seq. C.J.S. - 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 246 et seq.

U.L.A. - Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 59.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: In the Interest of A. H. S., 479 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of A. H. S., 479 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “Pretermitting the question of *825 whether such an express finding is required by OCGA § 15-11-35 (a) (2), we find no merit to this enumeration because contrary to A.”
In the Interest of M. D., 503 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “also challenges the disposition, asserting that it exceeds the maximum allowable penalties under OCGA § 15-11-35 (b). Since this issue may again be raised during the dispositional hearing on remand, we will address the issue on its merits.”
In the Interest of J. E. H., 413 S.E.2d 227 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “545, 546 (3), 547 ( 228 SE2d 712 ). Following a dispositional hearing, if the juvenile court finds that J.”
In the Interest of N. C., 667 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-11-35 (4) (the State or another party may commence a delinquency proceeding in juvenile court by, inter alia, filing a delinquency petition that complies with the Code).”
In Re B. C., 311 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Following a finding that appellant committed the offense of shoplifting and criminal trespass and that appellant was a delinquent child, the juvenile court in the instant case was authorized to enter an order of disposition only under OCGA § 15-11-35 (Code Ann. § 24A-2302). The…”
In Re B. M. H., 339 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the court should have made the juvenile and her parent aware of the possible dispositions of the case as such dispositions are set forth in OCGA § 15-11-35, should the juvenile be found to have committed a delinquent act.”
In the Interest of C. C. C., 374 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The trial court had the authority under OCGA § 15-11-35 (5) to require the juvenile to make restitution.”
In Re Ted, 312 S.E.2d 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-11-35 (Code Ann. § 24A-2302). Therefore, the trial court is directed to retain its jurisdiction of the child and enter an order of disposition best suited to the treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare of the youth.”
In the Interest of J. D. M., 369 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-11-35 (a) (2) provides, in pertinent part, that the juvenile court may place a juvenile found to be delinquent “on probation under conditions and limitations the court prescribes.”
In the Interest of D. H., a Child, 772 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “3 See OCGA § 15-11-16 (a) (2014) (juvenile proceedings commence, inter alia, by transfer of a case from another court or by the filing of a delinquency petition or complaint); former OCGA § 15-11-35 (a) (2012) (accord); former OCGA § 15-11-11 (1) (1999) (accord); State v.”
In the Interest of J. K. D., 440 S.E.2d 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The court imposed restrictive custody in accordance with OCGA § 15-11-35 (a) (4). Appellant contends that he was entitled to a favorable adjudication and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.”
In the Interest J. M., 513 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 15-11-35 (a) (1) and 15-11-34 (a) (1) (authorizing trial court to “[p]ermit the child to remain with his or her parents, guardian, or other custodian, .”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— 15-11-35(4) — 2 cases
In Re Nc, 667 S.E.2d 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Dl, 690 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-35(a)(1) — 1 case
In Re Jm, 513 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
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.