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) In any jurisdiction within which a risk reduction program has been established, when a child comes before the court for disposition, the court may order that a risk assessment or risk and needs assessment, as defined in Code Section 49-4A-1, be made of such child and the circumstances resulting in such child being before the court. (b) If the results of a risk assessment or risk and needs assessment, as defined in Code Section 49-4A-1, demonstrates a need for a case plan, the court may order that a case plan be developed by a panel representing community agencies as authorized by the court. A case plan shall contain the proposed actions and alternatives for the proper and efficient use of available community resources to assist a child. (c) A case plan shall be served on a child and his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian. A case plan shall also include a cover letter which contains the following information: (1) Sources to explain the process, procedures, and penalties for not responding to the court order in the prescribed time frame; and (2) The deadline for responding to the court order and stating objections to the case plan or any portion thereof is ten days from the date of service.
(d) If no objection is made or if a child and his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian consents to the case plan, the case plan shall be incorporated into and made a part of the disposition order entered in the case by entry of a supplemental order. The case plan may be modified by the court at any time such child is under the jurisdiction of the court. (e) If a child or his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian objects to the case plan, the court shall conduct a hearing. The court may decline to adopt the case plan or may confirm or modify the case plan. In implementing a case plan, the court shall have available all of the protective powers set forth in Code Section 15-11-29, without the necessity of a show cause hearing, unless objection is made to the case plan. (f ) In any jurisdiction within which a risk reduction program has been established, such court may issue an order authorized by Code Section 15-11-29.1.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-39, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2017, p. 604, § 1-2/SB 175.
Annotations
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
In the Interest of A. S., 667 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 12× “first claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because his case was not scheduled for an adjudication hearing in accordance with OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) and because the length of his pre-trial detention violated his constitutional right to due process.”
In re Interest of I.L.M., 816 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 6× “However, in cases involving allegations of deprivation the granting of continuances beyond the statutory limitations as defined in OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) shall be by written order and the specific reason for the continuance must be stated therein.”
Nobles v. State, 382 S.E.2d 637 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 14× “Rather, it is clear that in the order to which appellant refers, the juvenile court was not adjudicating the charge but instead was acting pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (A) and merely determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant committed the…”
In the Interest of RJ, 382 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 12× “Appellant contends the juvenile court failed to follow OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) (A) at the transfer hearing because it failed to require the State to introduce evidence that appellant committed the delinquent acts.”
L. K. F. v. State, 328 S.E.2d 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “At issue are two of the several statutory grounds and prerequisites set forth in OCGA § 15-11-39 which must be met before criminal charges asserted in a delinquency petition may be transferred for prosecution to some other court having jurisdiction of the offenses.”
In the Interest of J. L. B., 634 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “234, 235 (1) ( 217 SE2d 470 ) (1975); see OCGA § 15-11-39 (b) (requiring the juvenile court to issue a summons to the parents of an allegedly delinquent child as necessary and proper parties to the delinquency action); Sanchez v.”
In the Interest of C. R., 665 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) provides that “[a]fter the petition has been filed the court shall set a hearing thereon, which, if the child is in detention, shall not be later than ten days after the filing of the petition.”
Rivers v. State, 493 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “” The court granted his request pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-39. 1. Rivers enumerates as error the juvenile court’s order of transfer, contending that the court should not have allowed him to waive a *13 hearing in conformity with OCGA § 15-11-39.”
In the Interest of J. B., 507 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “to superior court for prosecution under OCGA § 15-11-39. 1. J. B. contends the State failed to meet its burden of showing that he was 15 years old at the time of the offense, as required by OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (4).”
State v. M. M., 386 S.E.2d 35 (Ga. 1989).
· cites it 13× “, a 15-year-old child, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault on a bus driver and aggravated assault on a police officer.”
In the Interest of D. B., 369 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 14× “The juvenile court denied appellant’s request, holding that it could make such a transfer only upon compliance with OCGA § 15-11-39. The State thereafter declined to introduce any evidence as to those factors which are enumerated in OCGA § 15-11-39 (a) (3) and indicated that,…”
Smith v. State, 327 S.E.2d 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 12× “At a committal hearing on Tuesday, appellant and *729 counsel were advised that the state would seek an indictment for armed robbery, that being the only offense charged of which the superior court had concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile court (see OCGA § 15-11-39). The…”
— 15-11-39(a) — 6 cases
In Re As, 667 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Cr, 665 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re At, 691 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Kjt, 542 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Kl, 694 S.E.2d 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-39(a)(3) — 3 cases
In Re Bjw, 543 S.E.2d 811 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Kjt, 542 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
In Re Jbh, 527 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
— 15-11-39(a)(3)(C) — 1 case
In Re Bjw, 543 S.E.2d 811 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
— 15-11-39(a)(4) — 1 case
In Re Jbh, 527 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
— 15-11-39(b) — 3 cases
In Re Jlb, 634 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Cr, 669 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Ajm, 627 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
— 15-11-39(d) — 2 cases
In Re Me, 593 S.E.2d 924 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Ama, 607 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
— 15-11-39(e) — 1 case
In Re Tkl, 627 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
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.