O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-11-660 (2019)

Review hearings

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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) The court shall hold a hearing to review a child’s progress toward competency:

(1) At least every six months;

(2) At any time, on its own motion or on the motion of the prosecuting attorney, a child’s attorney, or a child’s guardian ad litem, if any;

(3) On receipt of a report submitted by DBHDD; or

(4) Not less than three months before a child’s eighteenth birthday.

(b) If at a review hearing the court finds that a child has attained competency, the suspended proceedings shall be resumed and the time limits applicable under Article 5 or 6 of this chapter shall begin to run from the date of the order finding the child mentally competent.

(c) If at a review hearing held following the court’s receipt of a DBHDD or licensed psychologist or psychiatrist’s report the court finds that a child’s incompetency has not been remediated but that such child has made substantial progress toward remediation, the court may extend the competency remediation program period for an additional 60 days if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that further participation is likely to lead to remediation of competency.

(d) If at a review hearing the court finds that a child’s competency is not remediated and is not likely to be remediated within the time left before such child’s eighteenth birthday, the court shall dismiss the petition with prejudice if such child is alleged to be a child in need of services or to have committed a delinquent act which would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

(e) At each review hearing, the court shall also consider whether the petition alleging delinquency or that a child is a child in need of services should be withdrawn, maintained, or dismissed, without prejudice, upon grounds other than a child’s being incompetent to proceed. If the court dismisses the petition, the prosecuting attorney may seek to refile a petition alleging a delinquent act which would be a felony if committed by an adult if a child is later determined to be mentally competent. The prosecuting attorney may also seek transfer to superior court if a child is later determined to be mentally competent and otherwise meets all the requirements for transfer under Article 6 of this chapter.

History

Code 1981, § 15-11-660, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.

ARTICLE 8 PARENTAL NOTIFICATION ACT

Annotations

Cross references. - Abortion, T. 16, C. 12, A. 5. Criminal abortion, § 16-12-140. Abortions not to be performed by physician assistants, § 43-34-110. Parental Notification Act, Rules of the Supreme Court of Georgia, Rules 62 - 66. Parental Notification Act, Rules of the Court of Appeals of the State

of Georgia, Rule 45. Parental notification of abortion, Uniform Rules for the Juvenile Courts of Georgia, Rules 23.1 - 23.9.

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Two Decades of Reproductive Freedom Litigation and Activism in Georgia: From Doe v. Bolton to Atlanta v. Operation Rescue,’’ see 28 Ga. St. B. J. 34 (1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Use of Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s “Large-Fraction” test in review of abortion regulations, 38 A.L.R.7th Art. 6.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2016–2016 · leading case: In the Interest of M. D. H., 793 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 2016).
In the Interest of M. D. H., 793 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-11-660 (d) (providing for dismissal of a petition with prejudice in certain cases where the child is found to be incompetent).”
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.