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) Each juvenile court shall be assigned and attached to the superior court of the county for administrative purposes. (b) The governing authority of the county of residence of each juvenile court judge shall offer the juvenile court judge insurance benefits and any other benefits except retirement or pension benefits equivalent to those offered to employees of the county, with a right to contribution from other counties in the circuit for a pro rata contribution toward the costs of such benefits, based on county population. Counties shall continue to provide membership in retirement plans available to county employees for any juvenile court judge in office before July 1, 1998, who did not become a member of the Georgia Judicial Retirement System provided by Chapter 23 of Title 47. (c) Except for state grants provided by Code Section 15-11-52, all expenditures of the court are declared to be an expense of the court and payable out of the county treasury with the approval of the governing
authority or governing authorities of the county or counties for which the juvenile court judge is appointed.
History
Code 1981, § 15-11-54, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2017, p. 122, § 2-2/HB 5.
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Eligibility for special immigrant juvenile status under 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1101(a)(27)( J) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.11, 67 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 299.
Notes of Decisions
In the Interest of J. N., 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “The right in OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) to a direct appeal from orders or judgments in “child custody cases” plainly includes “child custody proceedings” as set forth in Chapter 9 of Title 19 (Domestic Relations) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, where the custody of a…”
In the Interest of A. G., 667 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Both parents allege that the trial court erred in failing to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by OCGA § 15-11-54. Because these cases involve the same facts, we have consolidated them for appeal.”
In re Interest of I.L.M., 816 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 4× “And at that time, OCGA § 15-11-54 read: (a) Findings. After hearing the evidence on any petition alleging deprivation, the court shall make and file its findings as to whether the child is a deprived child.”
In the Interest of J. J. X. C., 734 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “It is apparent that the court started with an order drafted by the petitioners and that the court struck all provisions relevant to SIJ status, including the proposed findings.”
H. C. S. v. Grebel, 321 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. 1984).
· cites it 4× “In addition, the appellants also assert that it is questionable whether private parties who petition the juvenile court for termination of parental rights can be awarded custody of the child, the rights to whom have been terminated.”
In the Interest of I. L. M., Child., 304 Ga. 114 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 4× “And at that time, OCGA § 15-11-54 read: (a) Findings. After hearing the evidence on any petition alleging deprivation, the court shall make and file its findings as to whether the child is a deprived child.”
In the Interest of S. Y., 591 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “3 An examination of the substance of the January 29 order shows that it is not a protective order pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-11, but is a deprivation order pursuant to OCGA §§ 15-11-54 and 15-11-55. The January 29 order was entered after a hearing on a petition for deprivation and…”
In the Interest of J. L., 603 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Under OCGA § 15-11-54 (a), [ajfter hearing the evidence on any petition alleging deprivation, the court shall make and file its findings as to *230 whether the child is a deprived child.”
In re M. A. F., 334 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 6× “” But, on October 16, 1984, six months after MAF was originally removed from his home without notice or a hearing, the judge without a further hearing entered an order terminating the parental rights of the natural parents.”
Stanfield v. Alizota, 756 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 2× “4 See OCGA §§ 15-11-54 to 15-11-58.1 (setting forth procedures and rules governing deprivation proceedings); OCGA §§ 15-11-93 to 15-11-106 (setting forth procedures and rules governing termination proceedings).”
In the Interest of C. F., 596 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 15-11-54 (a), “[ajfter hearing the evidence on any petition alleging deprivation, the court shall make and file its findings as to whether the child is a deprived child.”
In the Interest of S. B., 718 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The father further contends that the juvenile court’s deprivation order was deficient in that it lacked findings of fact as required by OCGA § 15-11-54 (a). We disagree. OCGA § 15-11-54 (a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]fter hearing the evidence on any petition alleging…”
— 15-11-54(a) — 4 cases
In Re Jl, 603 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Sb, 718 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Cf, 596 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Ag, 667 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
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.