O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-40 (2019)

Information sharing; confidentiality

✓ 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) Notwithstanding any provision contained in this chapter or in any rule or regulation adopted by any department, board, or agency of the state to the contrary, the court and any individual, public or private agency, or other entity participating in a community based risk reduction program may exchange, as necessary, information, medical records, school records, immigration records, records of adjudication, treatment records, and any other records or information which may aid in the assessment of and intervention with the children and families in such program if such exchange of information is ordered by the court or consented to by the parties. Such information shall be used by such individuals and agencies only for the purposes provided in this chapter and as authorized by the court for the purpose of implementing the case plan and for the purposes permitted under each agency’s own rules and regulations. Such information shall not be released to any other individual or agency except as may be necessary to effect the appropriate treatment or intervention as provided in the case plan. Such information shall otherwise remain confidential as required by state

and federal law and the court may punish any violations of confidentiality as contempt of court. (b) Any person who authorizes or permits any unauthorized person or agency to have access to confidential records or reports of child abuse shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who knowingly and under false pretenses obtains or attempts to obtain confidential records or reports of child abuse or information contained therein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Confidential records or reports of child abuse and information obtained from such records may not be made a part of any record which is open to the public except that a prosecuting attorney may use and make public that record or information in the course of any criminal prosecution for any offense which constitutes or results from child abuse. (d) This Code section shall not abridge the provisions relating to confidentiality of patient or client records and shall not serve to destroy or in any way abridge the confidential or privileged character thereof.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-40, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

Annotations

Cross references. - Exchange of information, § 15-11-710.

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.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in In the Interest of H. J. C., 331 Ga. App. 506, 771 S.E.2d 184 (2015).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: In the Interest of J. N., 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of J. N., 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 48× “1 On April 17, 2008, Paul Neese, the children’s biological father, filed a petition pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-40 (b) seeking modification of the August 14, 2007 order terminating reunification services and placing the children in the custody of relatives.”

In the Interest of J. W., 667 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “’s motion for early release in November 2007, and on January 18, 2008, the court issued an order denying that motion on the ground that OCGA § 15-11-40 (b) and controlling precedent prohibited the court from modifying its original order of commitment.”

In the Interest of J. V., 638 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “This language, at first glance, appears to conflict with that of OCGA§ 15-11-40 (b), which sets forth the grounds for modification or vacation of juvenile court orders and provides that an order of the court may also be changed, modified, or vacated on the ground that changed…”

In the Interest of A. M., 751 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 16× “We granted the parents’ application for discretionary review of the juvenile court’s order denying their motion pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-40 to modify or vacate the order terminating their parental rights to their five minor children, A.”

In the Interest of K. W., 662 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “On appeal, the father contends that the trial court erred in setting aside its February 2004 order based upon (i) insufficient evidence pursuant to OCGA §§ 15-11-40 and 19-8-9 (b), respectively, (ii) lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) the mother’s lack of…”

In the Interest of J. L. K., 691 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “” Second, the invocation of “further evidence” in support of the motion, as well as the allegation of new psychiatric results, necessarily raises OCGA § 15-11-40 (a) (3), which provides that a juvenile court order shall be set aside if newly discovered evidence so requires.”

In the Interest of P. S., 673 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “The juvenile court denied his motion, concluding that OCGA § 15-11-40 (b) prohibited modification of the com *725 mitment order because E S.”

Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “"The statutory procedure by which [the Ertters] may seek relief is set out at [OCGA § 15-11-40]." [4] West, 243 Ga. at 426 , 254 S.”

In the Interest of R. M., 766 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “2 The trial court responded that it considered the State’s petition to revoke proper under former OCGA § 15-11-40 (c) and concluded that, when taken together with the original delinquency petition, it *727 was sufficient “in terms of facts and notice to the Defendant.”

In the Interest of K. F., 683 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “Given that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to modify its commitment order pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-40 (b), its denial of K. F.’s motion for early release was not error.”

Interest of I. S., 607 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 6× “At a review hearing conducted May 21, 2003, the court heard from the parties that appellants had complied with the conditions prescribed by the court and that the infants were “doing fine,” although the results of medical testing undertaken to determine if I.”

In the Interest of J. H., 396 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 7× “OCGA § 15-11-40 (b) provides that if a court requests a report of a child’s mental health, and the report concludes that the child is committable under the laws of this state as a mentally retarded or mentally ill child, the court shall order the child detained and shall proceed…”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— 15-11-40(a) — 1 case

In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

— 15-11-40(a)(3) — 2 cases

In Re Kw, 662 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

In Re Jlk, 691 S.E.2d 892 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

— 15-11-40(b) — 14 cases

People Ex Rel. Devine v. Stralka, 877 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. 2007).

In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

In Re Jw, 667 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

In Re Kf, 683 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).

In Re Dw, 716 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

— 15-11-40(c) — 3 cases

In Re Kw, 662 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

In Re Jlb, 634 S.E.2d 514 (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.