Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 15-11-60 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 15-11-60 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 15-11-60

TITLE 15 COURTS

Section 11. Juvenile Code, 15-11-1 through 15-11-747.

ARTICLE 2 JUVENILE COURT ADMINISTRATION

15-11-60. Associate juvenile court judges; qualifications.

  1. A judge may appoint one or more persons to serve as associate juvenile court judges in juvenile matters on a full-time or part-time basis. The associate juvenile court judge shall serve at the pleasure of the judge, and his or her salary shall be fixed by the judge with the approval of the governing authority or governing authorities of the county or counties for which the associate juvenile court judge is appointed. The salary of each associate juvenile court judge shall be paid from county funds.
  2. Each associate juvenile court judge shall have the same qualifications as required for a judge of the juvenile court as provided in Code Section 15-11-51; provided, however, that any person serving as an associate juvenile court judge on July 1, 2007, shall be qualified for appointment thereafter to serve as an associate juvenile court judge.

(Code 1981, §15-11-60, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.)

Cross references.

- Appeals from referee's decision, Uniform Rules for the Juvenile Courts of Georgia, Rule 19.2.

Officers of the court and court personnel, Uniform Rules for the Juvenile Courts of Georgia, Rule 2.1 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-10 and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-21, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.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.

Failure to comply with subsections (b) and (c).

- Since the juvenile court referee [now associate judge] failed to comply with subsections (b) and (c) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-60), the order of commitment in the case must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in compliance with the foregoing provisions of the former Juvenile Court Code. In re W.M.F., 180 Ga. App. 397, 349 S.E.2d 265 (1986) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10).

Judge's failure to comply.

- While the language of a juvenile court judge's order suggested that the judge conducted a de novo review of a decision by an associate judge, the judge erred in denying a juvenile's motion for rehearing. The disposition which the juvenile court judge was authorized and required to make was a de novo determination as to the juvenile's delinquency, not an order granting or denying the juvenile's motion. In the Interest of J. C., 308 Ga. App. 336, 708 S.E.2d 1 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-21).

Nature of rehearing.

- Rehearing that was mandated by former subsection (d) (now subsection (e)) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-60) differs from a review of a referee's findings and recommendations. A rehearing on reconsideration contemplates a second, de novo consideration or a retrial of the issues, while a review involves only the examination of the record by an appellate tribunal and consideration for the purpose of correction. In re M.E.T., 197 Ga. App. 255, 398 S.E.2d 30 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10).

Effect of timely request for rehearing.

- Juvenile's timely request for a hearing required that the juvenile court judge make de novo findings and recommendations after conducting a de novo review of the original evidence that the referee considered. The judge could not ignore the timely request for a rehearing and merely "confirm" the findings and recommendations of the referee pursuant to subsection (e) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-21). In re M.E.T., 197 Ga. App. 255, 398 S.E.2d 30 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10).

Authority to confirm associate judge's findings and recommendations.

- Juvenile court judge is authorized to confirm the referee's findings and recommendation only if no rehearing is mandated. In re M.E.T., 197 Ga. App. 255, 398 S.E.2d 30 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-10).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Code 1933, § 24A-701, which was subsequently repealed but was 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.

Appointment of juvenile court personnel by superior court judge.

- Superior court judge sitting as a juvenile court judge may appoint supporting personnel for the juvenile court pursuant to former Code 1933, §§ 24A-601, 24A-603 and 24A-701 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-60,15-11-63, and15-11-66). 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U77-11 (decided under former Code 1933, § 24A-701).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 43 C.J.S., Infants, §§ 214, 215.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 7.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 15-11-60

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Florida Publ'g Co. v. Morgan, 322 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 1984 | 253 Ga. 467, 11 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1021

...ss hearings in juvenile court. OCGA § 15-11-28 (c). The other provision prohibits the name or picture of a child under juvenile-court jurisdiction for the first time from being made public by any news media except as authorized by court order. OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1)....
...any. On February 14, a juvenile-court hearing was held in Camden County Juvenile Court concerning these youths. Gray Thomas sought to attend the hearing, but he was barred by the juvenile-court judge under the authority of OCGA §§ 15-11-28 (c) and 15-11-60 (g) (1), supra....
...inds have a proper interest in the proceeding or in the work of the court may be admitted by the court. The court may temporarily exclude the child from the hearing except while allegations of his delinquency or unruly conduct are being heard." OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1) provides that: "The name or picture of any child under the jurisdiction of the court for the first time shall not be made public by any news media, upon penalty of contempt under Code Section 15-11-62, except as authorized by an order of the court." In line with OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1), supra, OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (2) provides: "It shall be mandatory upon the judge of the juvenile court to release the name of any child who is under the jurisdiction of the court for a second or subsequent time....
...nal in its closure of juvenile hearings from public view or inspection. Since no contempt order has been issued against the defendant for its publication of the names of the juveniles here, the court refused to consider the constitutionality of OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1), supra....
...The Court held that this "presumption of openness [had not been] overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." 52 Law Week at 4115-4116. Our Holdings. 1. We reach the issue of the constitutionality of OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1), supra, because, even though no contempt order has been issued here, the question concerning the statute's constitutionality has been raised, and the resolution of the question is of importance to the administration of our criminal-justice system....
...The juvenile court's ruling on this question must be composed of "findings in writing articulate enough for appellate review." Richmond Newspapers, 448 U. S. at 581, supra; Press Enterprise, 52 U. S. Law Week, supra, at 4115-4116. 3. As to the constitutionality of OCGA § 15-11-60 (g) (1), supra, we agree with the opinion of the Attorney General that it was invalidated by Smith v....