O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-38 (2019)

Community based risk reduction programs

✓ 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) Any court may order the establishment of a community based risk reduction program, within the geographical jurisdiction of the court, for the purpose of utilizing available community resources in assessment and intervention in cases of delinquency, dependency, or children in need of services so long as the court determines that sufficient funds are available for such programs. Subject to the procedures, requirements, and supervision established in the order creating such program, any individual and any public or private agency or entity may participate in the program. (b) As part of a risk reduction program, a court may implement or adopt an early intervention program designed to identify children and families who are at risk of becoming involved with the court. Such early intervention program shall be for the purpose of developing and implementing intervention actions or plans to divert the children and their families from becoming involved in future cases in the court. The court’s involvement shall be for the limited purpose of facilitating the development of the program and for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of the children and families participating in the program. (c) As part of an early intervention program, the court may enter into protocol agreements with school systems within the court’s jurisdiction, the county division of family and children services, the county department of health, DJJ, any state or local department or agency, any mental health agency or institution, local physicians or health care providers, licensed counselors and social workers, and any other social service, charitable, or other entity or any other agency or individual providing educational or treatment services to families and children within the jurisdiction of the court. Such protocol agreements shall authorize the exchange of confidential information in the same manner and subject to the same restrictions, conditions, and penalties as provided in Code Section 15-11-40. (d) When any agency or entity participating in a protocol agreement identifies a child who is at risk of becoming a delinquent child, dependent child, or child in need of services, the agency or entity shall refer the case to a multiagency staffing panel. The panel shall develop a multiagency intervention plan for such child. Such child or his or her

parent, or both, may be present during any review of such child’s case by the panel. A child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian shall be notified of the intervention plan by the agency making the referral or by a person or entity designated by the panel to administer the program. The staff of the court, other than the judge, shall work with the other agencies involved to educate a child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian and such child on the importance of following the intervention plan and on the consequences if anyone is referred to the court. If an intervention plan is developed for a child and his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian consents to such plan, the failure to comply with the plan or any portion thereof may constitute the basis for a referral to DFCS.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-38, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2014, p. 780, § 1-6/SB 364.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Georgia’s Juvenile Code: New Law for the New Year,’’ see 19 Ga. St. B. J. 13 (Dec. 2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity and efficacy of minor’s waiver of right to counsel - cases decided since application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87

S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), 101 A.L.R.5th 351.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1985–2015 · leading case: Wilson v. State, 525 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilson v. State, 525 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 4× “841 (7) ( 376 SE2d 184 ) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). Wilson further contends that evidence of his prior criminal activity was improperly admitted during the penalty phase because the evidence was insufficiently reliable.”

In the Interest of S. H., 469 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “; OCGA § 15-11-38 (a), (c); see also OCGA §§ 15-11-33 (c); 15-11-36.1; S. Krantz, C.”

Smith v. State, 510 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 4× “841, 844 (7) ( 376 SE2d 184 ) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). The record shows that the detective complied with OCGA § 15-11-59 (c) because he obtained the consent of the juvenile court judge before examining Smith’s file.”

Bun v. State, 769 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 4× “841 (7) ( 376 SE2d 184 ) (1989) (recognizing that former OCGA § 15-11-38 (b), now codified at OCGA § 15-11-703, specifically provides that a defendant’s juvenile records may be introduced during the sentencing phase of trial).”

Waugh v. State, 437 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “The objection is predicated on the proposition that [OCGA § 15-11-38] (b) was violated. . . . While the record reflects there was a juvenile proceeding relating to [appellant], we hold that the officer’s testimony regarding the facts learned in the investigation does not…”

Burrell v. State, 376 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). No error was committed by allowing the juvenile records to be introduced during the sentencing phase of the trial.”

In the Interest of J. H. M., 413 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “I respectfully dissent because I do not believe OCGA § 24-4-8 applies to juvenile cases. OCGA § 24-4-8 provides that "[t]he testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.”

Nicole Maddox v. Babette Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2013). “Maddox further argues that, even if it were clear that her move to Fulton County meant that Fulton County DFCS, rather than Gwinnett County DFCS, had primary jurisdiction, O.C.G.A. § 15-11-38 permits “any person .”

In the Interest of S. L. H., 422 S.E.2d 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “" It must first be determined whether OCGA § 16-1-8 (a) (2), which speaks of "prosecution," "crime," "conviction," and "acquittal," is applicable to juvenile proceedings.”

Taylor v. the State, 771 S.E.2d 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” In approving the use of juvenile records in the sentencing phase of that case, the Supreme Court in Burrell relied upon the version of former OCGA § 15-11-38 (b) that was in effect in 1989.”

In the Interest of G. G., 341 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Assuming that OCGA § 24-4-8, providing that a person cannot be convicted of a felony solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, controls an adjudication of delinquency which under OCGA § 15-11-38 is not a conviction of a crime, there was nevertheless some…”

Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998). “” Instead, these cases adopt an equal protection analysis because the juveniles had been adjudicated delinquent, and denying them an opportunity to appeal a finding of guilt denies the juveniles equal protection of the laws.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— 15-11-38(b) — 2 cases

Wilson v. State, 525 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 1999). “841 (7) ( 376 SE2d 184 ) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). Wilson further contends that evidence of his prior criminal activity was improperly admitted during the penalty phase because the evidence was insufficiently reliable.”

Smith v. State, 510 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 1998). “841, 844 (7) ( 376 SE2d 184 ) (1989); OCGA § 15-11-38 (b). The record shows that the detective complied with OCGA § 15-11-59 (c) because he obtained the consent of the juvenile court judge before examining Smith’s file.”

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.