O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58 (2019)

Council of Juvenile Court Judges; role; director

✓ 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) All of the judges and associate judges of the courts exercising jurisdiction over children shall constitute a Council of Juvenile Court Judges. The council shall annually elect from among its members a judge to serve as presiding judge and chairperson of the council. (b) The Council of Juvenile Court Judges: (1) Shall meet at stated times to be fixed by it or on call of the chairperson; (2) May establish general policies for the conduct of courts exercising jurisdiction over children; (3) May promulgate uniform rules and forms governing procedures and practices of the courts; (4) Shall publish in print or electronically an annual report of the work of the courts exercising jurisdiction over children, which shall include statistical and other data on the courts’ work and services, research studies the council may make of the problems of children and families dealt with by the courts, and any recommendations for legislation; and (5) Shall be authorized to inspect and copy records of the courts, law enforcement agencies, the department, the Department of Community Supervision, and DJJ for the purpose of compiling statistical data on children. (c) Subject to the approval of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges, the presiding judge of the council shall appoint a chief administrative and executive officer for the council who shall have the title of director of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges. Under the general supervision of the presiding judge of the council and within the policies established by the council, the director shall: (1) Provide consultation to the courts regarding the administration of court services and the recruitment and training of personnel; (2) Make recommendations to the council for improvement in court services; (3) With the approval of the presiding judge, appoint consultants and necessary clerical personnel to perform the duties assigned to the council and the director;

(4) Collect necessary statistics and prepare an annual report of the work of the courts; (5) Promulgate in cooperation with DJJ standard procedures for coordinating DJJ, the Department of Community Supervision, and county juvenile probation services throughout this state; and (6) Perform such other duties as the presiding judge of the council shall specify.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-58, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 5-9/HB 310.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the

amendment by this Act shall apply to sentences entered on or after July 1, 2015. Law reviews. - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 208 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 44× “We noted that, by taking jurisdiction of the deprivation action and, later, the termination action, the juvenile court was the first court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction over the issues of custody that arose pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 (involving placement of child…”
In the Interest of J. N., 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 24× “’s birth, and approved a case plan pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 for reunification of the children with the parents.”
In the Interest of J. C. W., 734 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 34× “Therefore, reunification efforts by the Department shall cease, in accordance with OCGA § 15-11-58 (h). Custody of the children remains with [DFACS].”
In the Interest of D. W., 668 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “22 (e) The mother points out that although the juvenile court held a permanency hearing in February 2007 in which it found that the permanency plan was termination, the record does not demonstrate that the Department submitted the written report as contemplated by OCGA §…”
In the Interest of J. P., 633 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “OCGA § 15-11-58 (a) (4) (C) provides that reasonable efforts to reunify a child with a parent are not required if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily.”
In the Interest of T. S., 712 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “, but did not specify which, if any, of the presumptions under OCGA § 15-11-58 (h) supported its finding.”
In the Interest of J. W. K., 578 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 36× “1 that the juvenile court erred by holding that OCGA § 15-11-58 (which sets forth the reunification efforts required in deprivation actions) does not apply to this private child deprivation proceeding.”
In the Interest of L. B., 735 S.E.2d 162 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “” 6 OCGA § 15-11-58 (h) provides that [w]hen reviewing the determination by [DFCS] that a reunification plan is not appropriate, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable efforts to reunify a child with his or her family will be detrimental to…”
Ertter v. Dunbar, 734 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 8× “See OCGA § 15-11-58 (i). Appellants Shannon and Michael Ertter, the child’s aunt and uncle, 1 were not parties to the juvenile court deprivation proceeding.”
In the Interest of A. M., 702 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “” OCGA § 15-11-58 (a) (2). The Department may, however, recommend that reunification services are not appropriate.”
Alizota v. Stanfield, 734 S.E.2d 497 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “was given to the Stanfields, pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 (i). The parties moved for nonreunification with relinquishment of custody before the juvenile court, which entered a consent order dated June 14, 2010, nunc pro tunc April 15, 2010, and an amended consent order dated…”
Stanfield v. Alizota, 756 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 14× “SeeOCGA § 15-11-58 (i). Following a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order dated June 14, 2010, nunc pro tunc to April 15,2010, 1 finding, among other things, that S.”
Show all 208 citing cases →
— 15-11-58(0) — 1 case
In Re Dh, 722 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
— 15-11-58(a) — 16 cases
In Re Jwk, 563 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jwk, 578 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. 2003).
In Re Tdb, 597 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Rdb, 639 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Fc, 549 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
— 15-11-58(a)(2) — 4 cases
In Re Bc, 550 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Rdb, 639 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Two, 643 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Am, 702 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-58(a)(2)(B) — 1 case
In Re Two, 643 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
— 15-11-58(a)(4) — 6 cases
In Re Ar, 670 S.E.2d 858 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Jp, 560 S.E.2d 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Ts, 712 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Jwk, 563 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Sle, 633 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
— 15-11-58(a)(4)(A) — 5 cases
In Re Jp, 560 S.E.2d 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Ab, 658 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Bm, 556 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
Coleman v. State, 708 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Rh, 706 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
— 15-11-58(a)(4)(C) — 3 cases
In Re Bm, 556 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Rb, 710 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Jp, 633 S.E.2d 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
— 15-11-58(b) — 5 cases
In Re Tr, 548 S.E.2d 621 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Jl, 603 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Rw, 561 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Dt, 643 S.E.2d 842 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Jwk, 578 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. 2003).
— 15-11-58(c)(1) — 1 case
In Re Jwk, 563 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
— 15-11-58(c)(3) — 4 cases
In Re Hfg, 635 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Bna, 546 S.E.2d 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re De, 605 S.E.2d 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Am, 702 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-58(d) — 1 case
In Re Jl, 603 S.E.2d 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
— 15-11-58(e) — 4 cases
In Re Tdb, 597 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Rjdb, 700 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Am, 702 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Ae, 723 S.E.2d 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
— 15-11-58(f) — 2 cases
In Re Tdb, 597 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Tr, 548 S.E.2d 621 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
— 15-11-58(h) — 27 cases
In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Sa, 588 S.E.2d 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
In Re Rnr, 570 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jp, 560 S.E.2d 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jpv, 582 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
— 15-11-58(h)(1) — 11 cases
In Re Jb, 618 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Cp, 662 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Jb, 619 S.E.2d 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Bdg, 586 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
In Re Db, 627 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
— 15-11-58(h)(2) — 3 cases
In Re Jpv, 582 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
In Re Jb, 618 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Mh, 554 S.E.2d 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
— 15-11-58(h)(3) — 6 cases
In Re Rnr, 570 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jw, 610 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Jp, 560 S.E.2d 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Jj, 652 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Am, 702 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-58(h)(4) — 1 case
In Re Jp, 560 S.E.2d 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
— 15-11-58(i) — 6 cases
Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “We noted that, by taking jurisdiction of the deprivation action and, later, the termination action, the juvenile court was the first court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction over the issues of custody that arose pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 (involving placement of child…”
In Re Jcw, 727 S.E.2d 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
In Re Jcw, 717 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Jwk, 563 S.E.2d 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
— 15-11-58(i)(1) — 3 cases
Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “We noted that, by taking jurisdiction of the deprivation action and, later, the termination action, the juvenile court was the first court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction over the issues of custody that arose pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 (involving placement of child…”
In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Jcw, 717 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
— 15-11-58(i)(1)(A) — 3 cases
In Re Ts, 712 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Cp, 662 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Jj, 652 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
— 15-11-58(i)(1)(D) — 1 case
In Re Jj, 652 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
— 15-11-58(i)(2) — 2 cases
Dunbar v. ERTTER, 718 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “We noted that, by taking jurisdiction of the deprivation action and, later, the termination action, the juvenile court was the first court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction over the issues of custody that arose pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-58 (involving placement of child…”
In Re Jn, 691 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-58(k) — 1 case
In Re Db, 627 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
— 15-11-58(m) — 3 cases
In Re Ja, 679 S.E.2d 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
In Re Kmc, 614 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Bs, 664 S.E.2d 915 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
— 15-11-58(n) — 6 cases
In Re Mss, 708 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
In Re Jw, 610 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Jm, 569 S.E.2d 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Qa, 702 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re At, 711 S.E.2d 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
— 15-11-58(n)(1) — 1 case
In Re Rb, 647 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
— 15-11-58(n)(3) — 8 cases
In Re Qh, 662 S.E.2d 358 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Jm, 569 S.E.2d 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Db, 627 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Rb, 647 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Qa, 702 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
— 15-11-58(o) — 1 case
In Re Dh, 722 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
— 15-11-58(p) — 1 case
In Re Dh, 722 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
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.