O.C.G.A. § 15-11-381 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2000 Code Section 24A-401, and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-2, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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. In light of the reenactment of this chapter, effective January 1, 2014, the reader is advised to consult the annotations following Code Section 15-11-2, for annotations which may also be applicable to this Code section. Desert defined. - ‘‘Desert,’’ in its most common verb form, is defined as ‘‘to withdraw from or leave usually without intent to return;’’ accordingly, in order for a child to ‘‘desert’’ the child’s home within the meaning of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(12)(D) (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2, 15-11-381, and 15-11-471), the child must leave the home without an intent to return to the home. Thus, when the defendant, a juvenile, left home for nearly two days but then returned voluntarily, the defendant’s delinquency adjudication for being an unruly child had to be reversed. In the Interest of D.B., 284 Ga. App. 445, 644 S.E.2d 305 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2).

Unruliness based on running away. - Defendant, a juvenile, was properly found unruly based on running away when the defendant went to a grandparent’s house without the parent’s permission and did not return of the defendant’s own volition. In the Interest of B.B., 298 Ga. App. 432, 680 S.E.2d 497 (2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). One becomes of full age on day preceding anniversary of one’s birth, on the first moment of that day. Edmonds v. State, 154 Ga. App. 650, 269 S.E.2d 512 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-401). Age of child at time of arrest. - Delinquency petition against a juvenile was properly transferred to the state court on the ground that the juvenile was arrested for possessing marijuana on the day before the juvenile’s seventeenth birthday; pursuant to former O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2 and 15-11-28 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2 and 15-11-10), the juvenile was deemed to have been 17 at the earliest moment of the day before the juvenile’s birthday, which was the day the juvenile was arrested. In the Interest of A.P.S., 304 Ga. App. 513, 696 S.E.2d 483 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). Former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2 was inapplicable to an unborn fetus who was

facing almost certain death because of complications in pregnancy. Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hosp. Auth., 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). Statement of 17-year old admissible as not child. - Fact that the defendant was 17 did not affect the admissibility of the defendant’s statement. The defendant was not a ‘‘child’’ under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2. Robertson v. State, 297 Ga. App. 228, 676 S.E.2d 871 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1300, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 406 (Ga. 2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). Sufficient evidence was present to find child truant and unruly, as well as in need of supervision, since the evidence showed a large number of unexcused absences and the mother never applied for the services of a homebound teacher for the child as required by the school. In re A.D.F., 176 Ga. App. 5, 335 S.E.2d 144 (1985) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). Determination of in need of supervision. - Since the corroboration rule, which requires independent corroborative evidence to support testimony of accomplice, does not apply to misdemeanors, a juvenile proceeding was reconsidered, as an erroneous finding about the juvenile’s alleged crime may have affected the court’s finding concerning whether the juvenile was in need of correction and supervision. J.B.L. v. State, 144 Ga. App. 223, 241 S.E.2d 40 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-401). No exclusive original jurisdiction over certain youthful offenders. - Ga. L. 1971, p. 709, § 1 does not vest exclusive original jurisdiction in the juvenile court over the following class of youthful offenders: persons between the ages of 17 and 21 years, who have committed noncapital felonies, and who are under the supervision of or are on probation to a juvenile court for acts of delinquency committed before reaching the age of 17 years. State v. Crankshaw, 243 Ga. 183, 253 S.E.2d 69 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-401). Former Code 1933, § 24A-401 was intended merely as a device for extending jurisdiction of juvenile courts

to take actions against persons between the age of 17 and 21 years authorized under Ga. L. 1971, p. 709, § 1. State v. Crankshaw, 243 Ga. 183, 253 S.E.2d 69 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-401). Noncapital felonies committed by persons over 17 years. - Former statute should not be construed as giving the juvenile courts jurisdiction over noncapital felonies committed by persons after those people have reached the age of 17 years. State v. Crankshaw, 243 Ga. 183, 253 S.E.2d 69 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-401). Evidence from forensic pediatrician and clinical psychologist. - There was no merit to a father’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence in finding that three children were deprived and in authorizing the grant of a motion for nonreunification with the father. Although the father claimed that certain documents contained hearsay, it was presumed that the trial court in a nonjury trial would select only legal evidence; the father had not shown that the opinions of a forensic pediatrician and a clinical psychologist who were qualified as experts should have been excluded; the father had not made any argument as to how he was prejudiced by evidence apparently introduced against the mother; and an indictment for one child’s injuries was properly admitted as the father’s custody status was an issue in the case. In the Interest of A.R., 295 Ga. App. 22, 670 S.E.2d 858 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2). Psychological testimony on developmental delay. - Evidence was sufficient to show that three children were deprived and to authorize the grant of a motion for nonreunification with their father. There was evidence that one child was seriously and intentionally injured while in either the sole or joint care of the father; the psychologist who evaluated the children, as well as their foster parent, testified as to numerous ways the children were developmentally delayed when initially taken into protective custody; and the father cited no evidence that he had made any attempt to maintain a parental bond with any of his children, met any of

the other goals of the reunification plans, or otherwise provided for the needs of his children. In the Interest of A.R., 295 Ga.

App. 22, 670 S.E.2d 858 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2).

PART 2 INFORMAL PROCEDURES