Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 19-7-5 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 19 DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Section 7. Parent and Child Relationship Generally, 19-7-1 through 19-7-54.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

19-7-5. Reporting of child abuse; when mandated or authorized; content of report; to whom made; immunity from liability; report based upon privileged communication; penalty for failure to report.

  1. The purpose of this Code section is to provide for the protection of children. It is intended that mandatory reporting will cause the protective services of the state to be brought to bear on the situation in an effort to prevent abuses, to protect and enhance the welfare of children, and to preserve family life wherever possible. This Code section shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof.
  2. As used in this Code section, the term:
    1. "Abortion" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 15-11-681.
    2. "Abused" means subjected to child abuse.
    3. "Child" means any person under 18 years of age.
    4. "Child abuse" means:
      1. Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, that physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;
      2. Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;
      3. Endangering a child;
      4. Sexual abuse of a child; or
      5. Sexual exploitation of a child.

        However, no child who in good faith is being treated solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof shall, for that reason alone, be considered to be an abused child.

    5. "Child service organization personnel" means persons employed by or volunteering at a business or an organization, whether public, private, for profit, not for profit, or voluntary, that provides care, treatment, education, training, supervision, coaching, counseling, recreational programs, or shelter to children.
    6. "Clergy" means ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, or similar functionaries, by whatever name called, of a bona fide religious organization.

      (6.1) "Endangering a child" means:

      1. Any act described by subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-70;
      2. Any act described by Code Section 16-5-73;
      3. Any act described by subsection (l) of Code Section 40-6-391; or
      4. Prenatal abuse, as such term is defined in Code Section 15-11-2.
    7. "Pregnancy resource center" means an organization or facility that:
      1. Provides pregnancy counseling or information as its primary purpose, either for a fee or as a free service;
      2. Does not provide or refer for abortions;
      3. Does not provide or refer for FDA approved contraceptive drugs or devices; and
      4. Is not licensed or certified by the state or federal government to provide medical or health care services and is not otherwise bound to follow the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-191, or other state or federal laws relating to patient confidentiality.
    8. "Reproductive health care facility" means any office, clinic, or any other physical location that provides abortions, abortion counseling, abortion referrals, or gynecological care and services.
    9. "School" means any public or private pre-kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school, technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education.
    10. "Sexual abuse" means a person's employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any minor who is not such person's spouse to engage in any act which involves:
      1. Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
      2. Bestiality;
      3. Masturbation;
      4. Lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
      5. Flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude;
      6. Condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of a person who is nude;
      7. Physical contact in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification with any person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, or buttocks or with a female's clothed or unclothed breasts;
      8. Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation;
      9. Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object except when done as part of a recognized medical procedure; or
      10. Any act described by subsection (c) of Code Section 16-5-46.

        Sexual abuse shall include consensual sex acts when the sex acts are between minors if any individual is less than 14 years of age; provided, however, that it shall not include consensual sex acts when the sex acts are between a minor and an adult who is not more than four years older than the minor. This provision shall not be deemed or construed to repeal any law concerning the age or capacity to consent.

    11. "Sexual exploitation" means conduct by any person who allows, permits, encourages, or requires a child to engage in:
      1. Prostitution, as defined in Code Section 16-6-9; or
      2. Sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual or print medium depicting such conduct, as defined in Code Section 16-12-100.
    1. The following persons having reasonable cause to believe that suspected child abuse has occurred shall report or cause reports of such abuse to be made as provided in this Code section:
      1. Physicians licensed to practice medicine, physician assistants, interns, or residents;
      2. Hospital or medical personnel;
      3. Dentists;
      4. Licensed psychologists and persons participating in internships to obtain licensing pursuant to Chapter 39 of Title 43;
      5. Podiatrists;
      6. Registered professional nurses or licensed practical nurses licensed pursuant to Chapter 26 of Title 43 or nurse's aides;
      7. Professional counselors, social workers, or marriage and family therapists licensed pursuant to Chapter 10A of Title 43;
      8. School teachers;
      9. School administrators;
      10. School counselors, visiting teachers, school social workers, or school psychologists certified pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 20;
      11. Child welfare agency personnel, as such agency is defined in Code Section 49-5-12;
      12. Child-counseling personnel;
      13. Child service organization personnel;
      14. Law enforcement personnel; or
      15. Reproductive health care facility or pregnancy resource center personnel and volunteers.
    2. If a person is required to report child abuse pursuant to this subsection because such person attends to a child pursuant to such person's duties as an employee of or volunteer at a hospital, school, social agency, or similar facility, such person shall notify the person in charge of such hospital, school, agency, or facility, or the designated delegate thereof, and the person so notified shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this Code section. An employee or volunteer who makes a report to the person designated pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to have fully complied with this subsection. Under no circumstances shall any person in charge of such hospital, school, agency, or facility, or the designated delegate thereof, to whom such notification has been made exercise any control, restraint, or modification or make any other change to the information provided by the reporter, although each of the aforementioned persons may be consulted prior to the making of a report and may provide any additional, relevant, and necessary information when making the report.
    3. When a person identified in paragraph (1) of this subsection has reasonable cause to believe that child abuse has occurred involving a person who attends to a child pursuant to such person's duties as an employee of or volunteer at a hospital, school, social agency, or similar facility, the person who received such information shall notify the person in charge of such hospital, school, agency, or facility, or the designated delegate thereof, and the person so notified shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this Code section. An employee or volunteer who makes a report to the person designated pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to have fully complied with this subsection. Under no circumstances shall any person in charge of such hospital, school, agency, or facility, or the designated delegate thereof, to whom such notification has been made exercise any control, restraint, or modification or make any other change to the information provided by the reporter, although each of the aforementioned persons may be consulted prior to the making of a report and may provide any additional, relevant, and necessary information when making the report.
  3. Any other person, other than one specified in subsection (c) of this Code section, who has reasonable cause to believe that suspected child abuse has occurred may report or cause reports to be made as provided in this Code section.
  4. With respect to reporting required by subsection (c) of this Code section, an oral report by telephone or other oral communication or a written report by electronic submission or facsimile shall be made immediately, but in no case later than 24 hours from the time there is reasonable cause to believe that suspected child abuse has occurred. When a report is being made by electronic submission or facsimile to the Division of Family and Children Services of the Department of Human Services, it shall be done in the manner specified by the division. Oral reports shall be followed by a later report in writing, if requested, to a child welfare agency providing protective services, as designated by the Division of Family and Children Services of the Department of Human Services, or, in the absence of such agency, to an appropriate police authority or district attorney. If a report of child abuse is made to the child welfare agency or independently discovered by the agency, and the agency has reasonable cause to believe such report is true or the report contains any allegation or evidence of child abuse, then the agency shall immediately notify the appropriate police authority or district attorney. Such reports shall contain the names and addresses of the child and the child's parents or caretakers, if known, the child's age, the nature and extent of the child's injuries, including any evidence of previous injuries, and any other information that the reporting person believes might be helpful in establishing the cause of the injuries and the identity of the perpetrator. Photographs of the child's injuries to be used as documentation in support of allegations by hospital employees or volunteers, physicians, law enforcement personnel, school officials, or employees or volunteers of legally mandated public or private child protective agencies may be taken without the permission of the child's parent or guardian. Such photographs shall be made available as soon as possible to the chief welfare agency providing protective services and to the appropriate police authority.
  5. Any person or persons, partnership, firm, corporation, association, hospital, or other entity participating in the making of a report or causing a report to be made to a child welfare agency providing protective services or to an appropriate police authority pursuant to this Code section or any other law or participating in any judicial proceeding or any other proceeding resulting therefrom shall in so doing be immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed, provided that such participation pursuant to this Code section or any other law is made in good faith. Any person making a report, whether required by this Code section or not, shall be immune from liability as provided in this subsection.
  6. Suspected child abuse which is required to be reported by any person pursuant to this Code section shall be reported notwithstanding that the reasonable cause to believe such abuse has occurred or is occurring is based in whole or in part upon any communication to that person which is otherwise made privileged or confidential by law; provided, however, that a member of the clergy shall not be required to report child abuse reported solely within the context of confession or other similar communication required to be kept confidential under church doctrine or practice. When a clergy member receives information about child abuse from any other source, the clergy member shall comply with the reporting requirements of this Code section, even though the clergy member may have also received a report of child abuse from the confession of the perpetrator.
  7. Any person or official required by subsection (c) of this Code section to report a suspected case of child abuse who knowingly and willfully fails to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
  8. A report of child abuse or information relating thereto and contained in such report, when provided to a law enforcement agency or district attorney pursuant to subsection (e) of this Code section or pursuant to Code Section 49-5-41, shall not be subject to public inspection under Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 even though such report or information is contained in or part of closed records compiled for law enforcement or prosecution purposes unless:
    1. There is a criminal or civil court proceeding which has been initiated based in whole or in part upon the facts regarding abuse which are alleged in the child abuse reports and the person or entity seeking to inspect such records provides clear and convincing evidence of such proceeding; or
    2. The superior court in the county in which is located the office of the law enforcement agency or district attorney which compiled the records containing such reports, after application for inspection and a hearing on the issue, shall permit inspection of such records by or release of information from such records to individuals or entities who are engaged in legitimate research for educational, scientific, or public purposes and who comply with the provisions of this paragraph.When those records are located in more than one county, the application may be made to the superior court of any one of such counties.A copy of any application authorized by this paragraph shall be served on the office of the law enforcement agency or district attorney which compiled the records containing such reports.In cases where the location of the records is unknown to the applicant, the application may be made to the Superior Court of Fulton County.The superior court to which an application is made shall not grant the application unless:
      1. The application includes a description of the proposed research project, including a specific statement of the information required, the purpose for which the project requires that information, and a methodology to assure the information is not arbitrarily sought;
      2. The applicant carries the burden of showing the legitimacy of the research project; and
      3. Names and addresses of individuals, other than officials, employees, or agents of agencies receiving or investigating a report of abuse which is the subject of a report, shall be deleted from any information released pursuant to this subsection unless the court determines that having the names and addresses open for review is essential to the research and the child, through his or her representative, gives permission to release the information.

(Code 1933, § 74-111, enacted by Ga. L. 1965, p. 588, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 1196, § 1; Ga. L. 1973, p. 309, § 1; Ga. L. 1974, p. 438, § 1; Ga. L. 1977, p. 242, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1978, p. 2059, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1980, p. 921, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, p. 1034, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1624, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1761, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1695, §§ 1, 1.1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 19; Ga. L. 1999, p. 81, § 19; Ga. L. 2006, p. 485, § 1/SB 442; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 2-2/HB 228; Ga. L. 2009, p. 733, § 1/SB 69; Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 5-1/HB 1176; Ga. L. 2013, p. 141, § 19/HB 79; Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 4-23/HB 242; Ga. L. 2013, p. 524, § 2-1/HB 78; Ga. L. 2015, p. 906, § 1/HB 268; Ga. L. 2016, p. 773, § 2/HB 905; Ga. L. 2017, p. 343, § 1/HB 86; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 19/HB 323.)

The 2016 amendment, effective July 1, 2016, added subparagraph (b)(4)(C); redesignated former subparagraphs (b)(4)(C) and (b)(4)(D) as present subparagraphs (b)(4)(D) and (b)(4)(E), respectively; substituted "abused" for " 'abused'" near the end of the undesignated language following present subparagraph (b)(4)(E); added paragraph (b)(6.1); inserted "the" preceding "federal Health Insurance" in the middle of subparagraph (b)(7)(D); substituted "such person's" for "that person's" in paragraph (b)(10); and substituted the present provisions of the undesignated language following subparagraph (b)(10)(I) for the former provisions, which read: "'Sexual abuse' shall not include consensual sex acts involving persons of the opposite sex when the sex acts are between minors or between a minor and an adult who is not more than five years older than the minor. This provision shall not be deemed or construed to repeal any law concerning the age or capacity to consent."

The 2017 amendments. The first 2017 amendment, effective May 8, 2017, in paragraph (b)(10), deleted "or" at the end of subparagraph (b)(10)(H), substituted "; or" for the period at the end of subparagraph (b)(10)(I), and added subparagraph (b)(10)(J). The second 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "provided that such participation" for "provided such participation" near the end of the first sentence of subsection (f).

Cross references.

- Criminal penalty for cruelty to children, § 16-5-70.

Battery, assault, stalking, and other offenses involving family members, § 19-13-1 et seq.

Restriction of access to records concerning reports of child abuse and neglect, § 49-5-40 et seq.

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1988, "willfully" was substituted for "wilfully" near the end of subsection (h) (formerly subsection (e)).

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1990, "provided" was substituted for "providing" in the first sentence of subsection (f).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 9-1(a)/HB 1176, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2012, and shall apply to offenses which occur on or after that date. Any offense occurring before July 1, 2012, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense and shall be considered a prior conviction for the purpose of imposing a sentence that provides for a different penalty for a subsequent conviction for the same type of offense, of whatever degree or level, pursuant to this Act."

Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 5-1/HB 242, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2014, and shall apply to all offenses which occur and juvenile proceedings commenced on and after such date. Any offense occurring before January 1, 2014, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such offense and shall be considered a prior adjudication for the purpose of imposing a disposition that provides for a different penalty for subsequent adjudications, of whatever class, pursuant to this Act. The enactment of this Act shall not affect any prosecutions for acts occurring before January 1, 2014, and shall not act as an abatement of any such prosecutions."

Administrative Rules and Regulations.

- Student support, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Education, Chapter 160-4-8.

Day care centers, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-2.

Family day care homes, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-3.

Rules and regulations for child caring institutions, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-5.

Rules and regulations for children's transition care centers, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-6.

Rules and regulations for outdoor child caring programs, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-7.

Rules and regulations governing the child protective services information system, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Rules of Department of Human Services, Family and Children Services, Subject 290-2-30.

Law reviews.

- For article recommending more consistency in age requirements of laws pertaining to the welfare of minors, see 6 Ga. St. B.J. 189 (1969). For article citing developments in Georgia juvenile court practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 167 (1981). For annual survey of criminal law and procedure, see 41 Mercer L. Rev. 115 (1989). For article on the 2012 amendment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 290 (2012). For article, "See No Evil, Speak No Evil: Georgia Supreme Court Narrows Requirements for Mandatory Reporters in May v. State," see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 837 (2015). For annual survey on criminal law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 73 (2017). For note on 1990 amendment of this Code section, see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 268 (1990). For note on 1993 amendment of this Code section, see 10 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 131 (1993). For note, "Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting Laws in Georgia: Strengthening Protection for Georgia's Children," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 643 (2015). For comment, "Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting Laws in Georgia: Strengthening Protection for Georgia's Children," see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 643 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Immunity not applicable to an act of molestation.

- Immunity provided by O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 is applicable only to such civil or criminal liability as might otherwise result from the act of reporting suspected child molestation or abuse, not to such criminal liability as may arise from the commission of the molestation or abuse itself. Austin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 235, 345 S.E.2d 688 (1986).

"Psychologist" means licensed psychologist.

- Term "psychologist", as contained in O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5, includes only licensed psychologists. Gladson v. State, 258 Ga. 885, 376 S.E.2d 362 (1989).

Counselor, who held a doctoral degree in human development from an accredited university but was not a licensed psychologist, could not be held criminally liable for failure to report alleged child abuse. Gladson v. State, 258 Ga. 885, 376 S.E.2d 362 (1989).

Limitation on mandatory obligation to report child abuse.

- Statutory obligation to report the abuse of a child is limited to the abuse of a child to whom the mandatory reporter attends pursuant to the reporter's duties in the profession, occupation, employment, or volunteer work by which the reporter is identified as a mandatory reporter. May v. State, 295 Ga. 388, 761 S.E.2d 38 (2014).

Limitation on teacher's mandatory obligation to report child abuse.

- Because, by the time the defendant learned of the sexual abuse, the child was no longer the defendant's student, was no longer enrolled in the school at which the defendant taught, and was no longer enrolled at any school in the same school system, the defendant was not attending to the child pursuant to the defendant's duties as a school teacher, and had no legal obligation to report the sexual abuse. May v. State, 295 Ga. 388, 761 S.E.2d 38 (2014).

No private cause of action.

- O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 does not expressly create a civil cause of action for damages in favor of the victim or anyone else. Cechman v. Travis, 202 Ga. App. 255, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1991), cert. denied, 202 Ga. App. 905, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1992); Vance v. T.R.C., 229 Ga. App. 608, 494 S.E.2d 714 (1997).

There is nothing within the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 which purports to create a private cause of action in tort in favor of an alleged victim of child abuse against the physician. Cechman v. Travis, 202 Ga. App. 255, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1991), cert. denied, 202 Ga. App. 905, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1992); Vance v. T.R.C., 229 Ga. App. 608, 494 S.E.2d 714 (1997).

No private cause of action lies for a failure to report child abuse in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5. Odem v. Pace Academy, 235 Ga. App. 648, 510 S.E.2d 326 (1998).

Psychologist was not subject to malpractice liability for failure to report suspected child sexual abuse pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5; prior case law established that O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 did not create a private cause of action for the failure to report child abuse. McGarrah v. Posig, 280 Ga. App. 808, 635 S.E.2d 219 (2006).

Person alleging child abuse held immune from liability for slander.

- As a tenant admitted at a deposition that the tenant's son was sometimes in their home, which the tenant knew was contaminated with toxic mold, without a mask, the landlord had reasonable cause to allege to authorities that the tenant was guilty of child abuse, and was thus entitled to immunity from the tenant's slander claim under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5(f). Brown v. Rader, 299 Ga. App. 606, 683 S.E.2d 16 (2009).

No immunity for false reports of child abuse.

- Trial court did not err in granting a protective order under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90(a)(1) against a foster parent who had placed a family under extensive surveillance through a combination of Internet searches and third party observations of the family's home and contacted law enforcement, causing groundless investigations. The foster parent was not immune from liability under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5(f) because the foster parent had not received any information that a child in the home had been subjected to abuse. Owen v. Watts, 307 Ga. App. 493, 705 S.E.2d 852 (2010).

Plaintiff, staff member at defendant's school, was not within class of protected persons contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5, and the plaintiff's claim for damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 could not survive summary judgment. Odem v. Pace Academy, 235 Ga. App. 648, 510 S.E.2d 326 (1998).

Immunity from liability of person participating in report.

- Grant of immunity from liability, under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5, extended to a psychologist to whom a child welfare agency referred a child for evaluation as part of an investigation of suspected child abuse and the evidence did not establish bad faith on the part of the psychologist in making a report to the agency that the child had been sexually abused. Michaels v. Gordon, 211 Ga. App. 470, 439 S.E.2d 722 (1993).

Doctor had to report suspected abuse.

- When children's allegations were sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect that child abuse occurred, a doctor had to report the suspected abuse and had immunity from suit for that report. O'Heron v. Blaney, 276 Ga. 871, 583 S.E.2d 834 (2003).

Supervisory decisions were discretionary acts.

- As a student's personal injury damages claims against three school employees were based on the employees negligent failure to supervise the student when the student was with a non-party, and that such failure allegedly led to the student being molested by the third-party, the supervisory decisions made were discretionary acts requiring personal deliberation and judgment; hence, any reliance on O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 did not provide a basis for civil liability against the employees for a negligent breach of a ministerial duty, and the student's claims were barred by the doctrine of official immunity as a matter of law. Reece v. Turner, 284 Ga. App. 282, 643 S.E.2d 814 (2007).

ALJ's finding of child sex abuse act supported by evidence.

- Preponderance of the evidence supported an ALJ's finding that an offender committed an act of child sex abuse on the 14-year-old victim, who testified that the offender humped the victim like a dog twice although the victim tried to get away from the offender; the term "hump like a dog" was within common understanding; the ALJ could have found that the offender performed an act of apparent sexual stimulation under O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5(b)(10)(G), for purposes of listing the offender on the child abuser registry. Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Steiner, 303 Ga. 890, 815 S.E.2d 883 (2018).

DFCS investigator's determination of child abuse registry listing did not violate separation of powers.

- Under the Child Protective Services Information System, O.C.G.A. § 49-5-180 et seq, an alleged child abuser has the right to a hearing before an administrative law judge, who makes the final agency decision after hearing evidence and argument from the alleged abuser and from DFCS. The role of the abuse investigator in the determination of whether an incident should be in the child abuse registry does not violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Steiner, 303 Ga. 890, 815 S.E.2d 883 (2018).

Hospital's report of the results of a drug test administered to a child was not made in bad faith, and summary judgment for the hospital based on the good faith immunity provision of O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5(f) was warranted. Baldwin County Hosp. Auth. v. Trawick, 233 Ga. App. 539, 504 S.E.2d 708 (1998).

No liability for failure to discover abuse.

- O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 does not require that notice be given by those physicians who should have had reasonable cause to suspect child abuse, and it does not penalize those physicians who fail to discover and report suspected instances of child abuse. Cechman v. Travis, 202 Ga. App. 255, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1991), cert. denied, 202 Ga. App. 905, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1992).

As a general rule, when the injury is not due to the fault of the person to be charged, the fact that a person sees another who is injured does not, of itself, impose on that person any legal obligation to afford relief or assistance, but the person may have a strong moral and humanitarian obligation to do so. O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 may change this common-law rule to the extent of imposing upon the physician, who has reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused, a legal duty to the state to report that suspicion. That section does not, however, change that common-law rule by imposing upon the physician, who merely failed to discover and report suspected child abuse, a legal liability to the child for future acts of child abuse. Cechman v. Travis, 202 Ga. App. 255, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1991), cert. denied, 202 Ga. App. 905, 414 S.E.2d 282 (1992).

Denial of immunity not a final judgment.

- Denial of the plea in bar, asserting immunity from prosecution pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5, does not constitute a final judgment, nor is the order otherwise directly appealable. Austin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 235, 345 S.E.2d 688 (1986).

Refusal to give jury instruction proper.

- Trial court did not err by refusing to charge the jury regarding O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 because the defendant cited no authority in support of the defendant's proposition that the trial court erred in refusing to give the instruction; the individual whom the defendant alleged failed to report the abuse as required by the statute was not a witness at trial, and the issue was irrelevant to the jury's determination of the defendant's guilt. Hamrick v. State, 304 Ga. App. 378, 696 S.E.2d 403 (2010).

Cited in Lipsey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 770, 318 S.E.2d 184 (1984); Perguson v. State, 221 Ga. App. 212, 470 S.E.2d 909 (1996); Moss v. State, 244 Ga. App. 295, 535 S.E.2d 292 (2000); Hubert v. State, 297 Ga. App. 71, 676 S.E.2d 436 (2009).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

"Cause to believe" is equivalent to "cause to suspect."

- For purposes of Georgia's child abuse reporting statute, providing for protection of children whose health and welfare are adversely affected and threatened, "cause to believe" is equivalent to "cause to suspect." 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-131.

"Deprived" child includes one who is abused, neglected, or exploited.

- Although the statute did not explicitly mention "deprived" children as defined in Juvenile Court Code, the definition was certainly inclusive of a child who is abused, neglected, or exploited. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-131.

Phrase "participating in any judicial proceeding" clearly extended to filing of petition as well as mere testimony in proceeding initiated by others. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-70.

"Caretakers."

- Personnel of public and private schools are "caretakers" as defined in O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-29.

Scope of authority to investigate.

- Department of Human Resources, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5, has authority and responsibility only for investigating reports of suspected abuse when it is alleged or reasonably suspected that the abuse of the child was by a parent or caretaker. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-29.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Trial Report: Third Party Suit Against Therapists for Implanting False Memory of Childhood Molestation, 57 Am. Jur. Trials 313.

When Clergy Fail Their Flock: Litigating the Clergy Sexual Abuse Case, 91 Am. Jur. Trials 151.

ALR.

- Failure to provide medical attention for child as criminal neglect, 12 A.L.R.2d 1047.

Right, in child custody proceedings, to cross-examine investigating officer whose report is used by court in its decision, 59 A.L.R.3d 1337.

Admissibility of expert medical testimony on battered child syndrome, 98 A.L.R.3d 306.

Validity and construction of penal statute prohibiting child abuse, 1 A.L.R.4th 38.

Admissibility at criminal prosecution of expert testimony on battering parent syndrome, 43 A.L.R.4th 1203.

Validity, construction, and application of statute limiting physician-patient privilege in judicial proceedings relating to child abuse or neglect, 44 A.L.R.4th 649.

Validity, construction, and application of state statute requiring doctor or other person to report child abuse, 73 A.L.R.4th 782.

Denial or restriction of visitation rights to parent charged with sexually abusing child, 1 A.L.R.5th 776.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5

Total Results: 13  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 62 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 28, 2010 | 287 Ga. 448, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2051

...of action that is not based on the actual provisions of the relevant statute. Thus, in Murphy , this Court cited with approval two Court of Appeals cases, Vance and Cechman, that held that no private cause of action arose from the violation of OCGA § 19-7-5, which makes it a crime for certain people to fail to report suspected child abuse. See Murphy, 282 Ga. at 201, 647 S.E.2d 54. In both cases, the Court of Appeals held that there was nothing in OCGA § 19-7-5 that purported to create a private tort cause of action in favor of a child whose abuse was not reported....
Copy

May v. State, 295 Ga. 388 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 57 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 2014 | 761 S.E.2d 38

In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 30, 2014 S14A0309. MAY v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. This case concerns the meaning of OCGA § 19-7-5, which requires school teachers1 and certain other persons,2 if they have “reasonable cause to believe 1 The statute does not define “school teachers,” but it broadly defines a “school” as “any public or private pre-kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school, technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (9). 2 These other persons are identified in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (A) - (O): (A) Physicians licensed to practice medicine, physician assistants, interns, or residents; (B) Hospital or medical personnel; (C) Dentists; (D) Licensed psychologists and persons partici...
...school psychologists certified pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 20; (K) Child welfare agency personnel, as that agency is defined pursuant to Code Section 49-5-12; that a child has been abused,” to make a report of such abuse. OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (H). The statute defines “child abuse” to include “sexual abuse of a child,”3 OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (C), and it defines “sexual abuse” to include nine specified varieties of sexual activity involving a child.4 OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (A) - (I). The statute makes it a crime for a person required to make such a report to “knowingly and willfully fail[] to do so.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (h). According to the record, Kristin Lynn May was employed as a teacher at River Ridge High School, a public secondary school in the Cherokee County School District....
...center personnel and volunteers. 3 For the purposes of the statute, “child abuse” also includes “[p]hysical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means,” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (A), “[n]eglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof,” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (B), and “[s]exual exploitation of a child.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (D). 4 The statute excepts sexual activities between a minor and the spouse of the minor, as well as “consensual sex acts involving persons of the opposite sex when the sex acts are between minors or between a minor and an adult who is not more than five years older than the minor.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10)....
...District. As they spoke, P. M. disclosed that she previously had a sexual relationship with Robert Leslie Morrow, a paraprofessional at River Ridge. No one appears to dispute that this relationship involved sexual activities that are defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) as “sexual abuse.” May, however, did not make any report of the sexual abuse. When these circumstances later came to the attention of law enforcement, May was charged by accusation with a criminal violation of OCGA § 19-7-5. In pertinent part, the accusation5 alleged that May: [I]n Cherokee County, Georgia, in January 2011, did unlawfully then and there commit the offense of FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE, by being a school teacher, a mandatory reporter within the meaning and purview of [OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1)], and knowingly and willfully failing to report a case of suspected child abuse, to wit, sexual abuse, against a student, [P....
...that P. M. — by the time she spoke with May in January 2011 and disclosed her sexual relationship with Morrow — no longer was a student at River Ridge. Because P. M. was not then enrolled at River Ridge, May argued, she had no duty under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) to make a report. The trial court denied the demurrer and plea in bar, reasoning that a school teacher is required to report the abuse of any child, even one with whom the teacher has no relationship at all. According to the trial court, to prove a violation of OCGA § 19-7-5 in this case, the State would only be required to prove: (1) that [May] was a teacher, (2) that [May] knew or suspected one or more instances of child abuse as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5, (3) that [May] failed to report the abuse, and (4) that the crime occurred in Cherokee County. In the alternative, the trial court reasoned that, even if a relationship with the child were required, proof that May had taught P....
...nterlocutory appeal.6 The Court of Appeals denied that application in an unreported order, and May then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. We granted the petition to consider whether the obligation to report abuse under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) extends to all children or instead is limited to children to whom the reporter has a duty to attend.7 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the obligation is limited, and school teachers and other reporters only have an o...
...the abuse of children to whom they attend in connection with the profession, occupation, employment, or volunteer work by which they are identified in subparagraphs (c) (1) (A) - (O) as a mandatory reporter. Our inquiry into the scope of the obligation under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) begins, of course, with the words of that provision....
...See generally OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). 7 When we granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, we specifically directed the parties to address this issue in their briefs. We also asked the parties to address another issue, whether the willfulness element of OCGA § 19-7-5 (h) requires proof that the accused acted with an evil purpose or with knowledge of her legal duty to report....
...anner in which a report must be made. In general, a reporter must report directly “to a child welfare agency providing protective services . . . or, in the absence of such agency, to an appropriate police authority or district attorney.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (e)....
...r cause a report to be made in accordance with this Code section. An employee or volunteer who makes a report to the person designated pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to have fully complied with this subsection. OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2) (emphasis supplied)....
...ory reporter attends.8 We think that paragraph (c) (2) is most reasonably understood to presuppose just such a limitation. 8 Such a limitation would be, of course, consistent with the identification of mandatory reporters in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (A) - (O), all of whom are identified by reference to a profession, an occupation, employment, or volunteer work in the course of which one reasonably might be expected to attend to children....
...l link between attending to a child and the obligation to make a report reasonably might be read in another way, one that does not presuppose that the obligation is limited in all cases to children to whom the reporter attends. According to OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1), the obligation arises only when a mandatory reporter “ha[s] reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused,” and attending to a child is perhaps the most common way in which a mandatory reporter might come to have cause for such a belief....
... By doing so, the alternative procedure makes prompt reporting more likely, and it makes reports more likely to be directed to the appropriate agency. Doubt among the 9 Consider “hospital personnel, who are identified in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (B) as mandatory reporters....
...volunteer, and by channeling a report through management, the opportunity exists for management to supplement the report of an employee or volunteer with additional pertinent information, something that the statute itself contemplates explicitly. See OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2) (although “the person in charge of the facility, or the designated delegate thereof,” may not suppress or alter “the information provided by the reporter,” such person “may provide any additional, relevant, and necessar...
...employees and volunteers at institutional facilities. Consequently, paragraph (c) (2) is most reasonably understood, we think, to presuppose that the obligation to make a report is limited to children to whom the reporter attends. The statutory history of OCGA § 19-7-5 also suggests that the obligation is most reasonably understood in this way....
...From that omission, one reasonably might conclude that the General Assembly meant to lift the limitation, but for another provision of the 1974 13 version of the statute that presupposed — in much the same way as the modern version of OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2), but even more clearly — that the obligation still was limited to children to whom the mandatory reporter attends: Any physician[,] licensed osteopathic physician, intern, resident, dentist, podiatrist, public health...
...has undertaken a special relationship with the person exposed to such injury. See, e.g., City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26, 28 (1) (426 SE2d 861) (1993) (duty of municipality to provide police protection). Insofar as the purpose of 18 OCGA § 19-7-5 is to protect abused children from further abuse, see OCGA § 19-7-5 (a), understanding the obligation to report as one limited to children to whom the mandatory reporter attends is consistent with the general approach of the common law. In this Court, the State concedes that the obligation to report is limited and that the reference in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) to “a child” does not mean literally “any child.” But unlike May, the State fails to point to a meaningful limitation that is grounded in the text, structure, history, and the law in the background of the statute....
...515, 527 (2) (b) (712 SE2d 838) (2011), but we note that if it were applied here, it would lead us to the same conclusion. We also do not rely in this case upon the canon of constitutional doubt, see id. at 521-522 (2) (b), notwithstanding that OCGA § 19-7-5 may invite, as we have said before, “serious constitutional inquiry.” Gladson v....
Copy

King v. State, 535 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 40 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 2, 2000 | 272 Ga. 788

...nity to object, it is not "appropriate" under that statute for the State in a criminal case to subpoena a defendant's own personal medical records which are then in the possession of a physician, hospital or health care facility. Compare, e.g., OCGA § 19-7-5, dealing with reporting requirements when a child is the suspected victim of abuse....
Copy

Kennedy v. State, 592 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 16, 2004 | 277 Ga. 588, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 596

...A motion for new trial, filed on February 19, 2001, and amended on April 25 and April 29, 2003, was denied by the trial court on May 12, 2003. A notice of appeal was timely filed on May 27, 2003, and the appeal was docketed in this Court on June 4. It was orally argued on September 9, 2003. [1] Compare OCGA § 19-7-5(b)(3)(A) (for mandatory reporting purposes, "child abuse" is nonaccidental "physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker"); Ala.Code § 26-15-3 (felony child abuse committed when certain persons "torture, willfully abuse, cruelly beat or otherwise willfully maltreat any child"); Fla....
Copy

O'HERON v. Blaney, 583 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 2003 | 276 Ga. 871, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2022

...Thomas Blaney and Jean Blaney sued Dr. Sara O'Heron and her employer, The Emory Clinic, after O'Heron made a report regarding suspected abuse by Thomas Blaney of his granddaughters. The trial court granted O'Heron summary judgment based on the immunity provided in OCGA § 19-7-5(f)....
...nt children from abuse is abundantly clear. Furthermore, the legislature has specified that this law "shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof." [9] It is within this context that we must construe the requirements of OCGA § 19-7-5....
...bused shall report or cause reports of that abuse to be made as provided in this Code section." The report must include any information that "might be helpful in establishing the cause of the injuries and the identity of the perpetrator." Under OCGA § 19-7-5(f) any person who participates in the making of a report is immune from civil or criminal liability that would otherwise be incurred, "provided such participation ......
...ce system. [18] Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except SEARS, P.J., BENHAM and CARLEY, JJ., who dissent. CARLEY, Justice, dissenting. I believe that the Court incorrectly analyzes the immunity provided to reporters of child abuse by OCGA § 19-7-5, and then fails to consider evidence which makes summary judgment entirely inappropriate in this case....
...f child abuse "is, by definition, operating in good faith." (Maj. op. p. 873) See Warner v. Mitts, 211 Mich.App. 557, 536 N.W.2d 564, 566 (1995) (cited in footnote 13 of the majority opinion). However, a reading of subsections (c)(1) and (f) of OCGA § 19-7-5 together, as the majority purports to do, cannot lead to the conclusion that a purely subjective standard applies to the determination of "good faith" and that the only question relevant to that determination "is whether the reporter honestly believed she had a duty to report." (Maj....
...onest belief that abuse has not occurred. As Warner itself states, "`good faith' pertains to the existence of a reasonable suspicion...." Warner v. Mitts, supra at 566. In examining statutory provisions which are *838 substantially identical to OCGA § 19-7-5(c)(1) and (f), a Washington appellate court pointed out that, although "good faith" is not defined, "the reporting statute is framed in terms of reasonableness....
...When the Court of Appeals referred to the concepts of good faith and reasonable inquiry in other contexts, it was not "superimposing a requirement of reasonableness on the good faith standard." (Maj. op. p. 874) The interplay between reasonableness and good faith arises from the statute itself. In construing OCGA § 19-7-5, the Court of Appeals was simply drawing a valid analogy to the duty of reasonable inquiry imposed in another good faith statute....
...§ 1983, which also measures official conduct by a standard of reasonableness, the courts have refused to employ a totally subjective standard when applying the good faith test for immunity. [Cit.]" Therefore, I believe that, in order to have immunity under subsection (f) of OCGA § 19-7-5, the reporter of child abuse is required to "act with a reasonable good faith intent, judged in light of all the circumstances then present...." Dunning v....
...Laws 438 (eliminating requirement of medical exam being made prior to report); 1980 Ga. Laws 921 (allowing photographs to be taken). [6] See, e.g., 1981 Ga. Laws 1034. [7] 1974 Ga. Laws 438 (providing immunity for voluntary reporters). [8] 1977 Ga. Laws 242. [9] OCGA § 19-7-5(a). [10] OCGA § 19-7-5(f). [11] OCGA § 19-7-5(c)(1)....
...2002); Garvis v. Scholten, 492 N.W.2d 402, 403 (Iowa 1992) (same). [16] Michaels v. Gordon, 211 Ga.App. 470, 473, 439 S.E.2d 722 (1993). [17] Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Bd., 273 Ga. 715, 717-718(4), 545 S.E.2d 875 (2001). [18] OCGA § 19-7-5(a), (e).
Copy

In the Interest of A. V. B., 267 Ga. 728 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 3, 1997 | 482 S.E.2d 275

Copy

Georgia Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Fam. & Child. Servs. v. Steiner, 303 Ga. 890 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 18, 2018

...I got off of him and walked away a little from him to make him stop. According to K. S.’s statement, Steiner was 52 years old at the time. DFCS conducted an investigation and determined that this encounter was a “substantiated case” of child sexual abuse, as defined in OCGA § 49-5-180 (8) and (10) and OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10).2 Steiner’s name and identifying information were therefore added to the child abuse registry, along with a copy of the DFCS investigator’s report and a classification of the abuse as sexual. 2 OCGA § 49-5-180 (1...
...as “an investigation of a child abuse report by an abuse investigator which has been confirmed based upon a preponderance of the evidence that child abuse has occurred.” OCGA § 49-5-180 (8) refers to the definition of child sexual abuse in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10), which in turn defines “sexual abuse” of a minor as, in relevant part: ... [A] person’s employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any minor who...
...told him to stop after he did it the first time; and that “[t]here [was] no evidence this was consensual.” Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the ALJ determined that DFCS had substantiated a case of child sexual abuse, as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G), against Steiner....
...the separation of powers. DFCS is an arm of the executive branch whose primary purpose is “to protect children.” OCGA § 49-3-6; see OCGA § 49- 5-8. Among other tasks, DFCS is charged with receiving and investigating reports of child abuse. See OCGA §§ 19-7-5; 49-5-8 (a) (2) (B)....
...te the constitutional principle of separation of powers. VI. The ALJ determined that DFCS had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Steiner committed an act of child abuse, as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10)....
...evidence”). The term “hump like a dog” is within common understanding, and it is reasonable to conclude that the ALJ understood this descriptive phrase to mean that Steiner performed “an act of apparent sexual stimulation.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G)....
...m to make him stop. Accordingly, at least some evidence exists to support the ALJ’s finding that there was “[p]hysical contact in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification with [Steiner’s] clothed or unclothed genitals.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G). The superior court also noted its concern with the statement in the ALJ’s order that there was no evidence that the act was consensual, which indicated to the court that the ALJ may have shifted to Steiner the burden of proving that K....
...e Act, the superior court erred in reversing the ALJ’s finding on this issue. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. abuse as it is defined in the Act, except in certain circumstances not present here. See OCGA §§ 49-5-180 (8); 19-7-5 (b) (10). PETERSON, Justice, concurring. When DFCS determined that Christopher Steiner was to be designated as a “substantiated” child abuser for the rest of his life, it gave him notice of this decision in language so inco...
Copy

Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Steiner, 815 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 18, 2018

...I got off of him and walked away a little from him to make him stop. According to K.S.'s statement, Steiner was 52 years old at the time. DFCS conducted an investigation and determined that this encounter was a "substantiated case" of child sexual abuse, as defined in OCGA § 49-5-180 (8) & (10) and OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10).2 *889Steiner's name and identifying information were therefore added to the child abuse registry, along with a copy of the DFCS investigator's report and a classification of the abuse as sexual. In January 2017, after Steiner wa...
...told him to stop after he did it the first time; and that "[t]here [was] no evidence this was consensual." Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the ALJ determined that DFCS had substantiated a case of child sexual abuse, as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G), against Steiner....
...separation of powers. DFCS is an arm of the executive branch whose primary purpose is "to protect children." OCGA § 49-3-6 ; see OCGA § 49-5-8. Among other tasks, DFCS is charged with receiving and investigating reports of child abuse. See OCGA §§ 19-7-5 ; 49-5-8 (a) (2) (B)....
...ld be in the child abuse registry does not violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. VI. The ALJ determined that DFCS had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Steiner committed an act of child abuse, as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10)....
...o the weight of the evidence"). The term "hump like a dog" is within common understanding, and it is reasonable to conclude that the ALJ understood this descriptive phrase to mean that Steiner performed "an act of apparent sexual stimulation." OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G)....
...way from him to make him stop. Accordingly, at least some evidence exists to support the ALJ's finding that there was "[p]hysical contact in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification with [Steiner's] clothed or unclothed genitals." OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (G). The superior court also noted its concern with the statement in the ALJ's order that there was no evidence that the act was consensual, which indicated to the court that the ALJ may have shifted to Steiner the burden of proving that K.S....
...as "an investigation of a child abuse report by an abuse investigator which has been confirmed based upon a preponderance of the evidence that child abuse has occurred." OCGA § 49-5-180 (b)(8) refers to the definition of child sexual abuse in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10), which in turn defines "sexual abuse" of a minor as, in relevant part: a person's employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any minor who is not such person's spouse to engage in any act which involves ... (G)...
...Here, as in Smith , these factors "are of little weight." Smith , 538 U.S. at 105, 123 S.Ct. 1140. We note that lack of consent of the minor victim is not an element of child sexual abuse as it is defined in the Act, except in certain circumstances not present here. See OCGA §§ 49-5-180 (8) ; 19-7-5 (b) (10).
Copy

Melancon v. State, 906 S.E.2d 725 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 17, 2024 | 319 Ga. 741

...e our legislature has enacted a statute that (1) makes reporting of sus- pected child abuse mandatory for only a subset of people (like doc- tors, teachers, and police), and (2) makes the failure to report such abuse only a misdemeanor. See OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1), (h)....
Copy

State v. Morrow, 300 Ga. 403 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 21, 2016 | 794 S.E.2d 37

...864, § 16. After P. M. transferred from River Ridge to another school, she disclosed her sexual relations with Morrow to a River Ridge teacher. In May v. State, 295 Ga. 388 (761 SE2d 38) (2014), we held that this teacher had no legal obligation under OCGA § 19-7-5 to report the disclosure of sexual contact. A parenthetical following the citation of Hammonds shows how the Court of Appeals in this case misread Hammonds....
Copy

Gladson v. State, 376 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. 1989).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 17, 1989 | 258 Ga. 885

...Hartley, for appellant (case no. 46384). Patrick Head, Solicitor, Melodie H. Clayton, Assistant Solicitor, *887 for appellee. WELTNER, Justice. Misdemeanor accusations were lodged against Laura Joanna Gladson and James Lee Powell, charging that they were persons required by OCGA § 19-7-5 to report child abuse; that they had reasonable cause to believe that two children under the age of 18 had been assaulted sexually; and that they knowingly and wilfully failed to report such abuse to an appropriate agency providing protective services....
...report the alleged child abuse. 3. Powell, on the other hand, is a licensed psychologist, and may be held criminally liable for failure to so report, assuming the existence of the other elements of the offense. 4. The remainder of the statute, OCGA § 19-7-5, as presently drawn, invites serious constitutional inquiry as to its adequacy in defining classes of persons who are required to make reports of child abuse....
...226 (299 SE2d 911) (1983), the trial court allowed an evidentiary hearing in connection with these pleadings. While we remain doubtful that these authorities would sanction such a hearing, the state did not object, and participated fully in the hearing. Hence, we will consider the testimony from this hearing. [3] OCGA § 19-7-5, before it was amended by Ga....

May v. State (Ga. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 2014 | 258 Ga. 885

FINAL COPY 295 Ga. 388 S14A0309. MAY v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. This case concerns the meaning of OCGA § 19-7-5, which requires school teachers1 and certain other persons,2 if they have “reasonable cause to believe 1 The statute does not define “school teachers,” but it broadly defines a “school” as “any public or private pre-kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school, technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (9). 2 These other persons are identified in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (A)-(O): (A) Physicians licensed to practice medicine, physician assistants, interns, or residents; (B) Hospital or medical personnel; (C) Dentists; (D) Licensed psychol...
...(M) Child service organization personnel; (N) Law enforcement personnel; [and] (O) Reproductive health care facility or pregnancy resource center that a child has been abused,” to make a report of such abuse. OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (H). The statute defines “child abuse” to include “[s]exual abuse of a child,”3 OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (C), and it defines “sexual abuse” to include nine specified varieties of sexual activity involving a child.4 OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) (A)-(I). The statute makes it a crime for a person required to make such a report to “knowingly and willfully fail[ ] to do so.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (h). According to the record, Kristin Lynn May was employed as a teacher at River Ridge High School, a public secondary school in the Cherokee County School District....
...hool personnel and volunteers. 3 For the purposes of the statute, “child abuse” also includes “[p]hysical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means,” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (A), “[n]eglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof,” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (B), and “[s]exual exploitation of a child.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (4) (D). 4 The statute excepts sexual activities between a minor and the spouse of the minor, as well as “consensual sex acts involving persons of the opposite sex when the sex acts are between minors or between a minor and an adult who is not more than five years older than the minor.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10)....
... District. As they spoke, P. M. disclosed that she previously had a sexual relationship with Robert Leslie Morrow, a paraprofessional at River Ridge. No one appears to dispute that this relationship involved sexual activities that are defined in OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (10) as “sexual abuse.” May, however, did not make any report of the sexual abuse. When these circumstances later came to the attention of law enforcement, May was charged by accusation with a criminal violation of OCGA § 19-7-5. In pertinent part, the accusation5 alleged that May: [I]n Cherokee County, Georgia, in January 2011, did unlawfully then and there commit the offense of FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE, by being a school teacher, a mandatory reporter within the meaning and purview of [OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1)], and knowingly and willfully failing to report a case of suspected child abuse, to wit, sexual abuse, against a student, [P....
... that P. M. — by the time she spoke with May in January 2011 and disclosed her sexual relationship with Morrow — no longer was a student at River Ridge. Because P. M. was not then enrolled at River Ridge, May argued, she had no duty under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) to make a report. The trial court denied the demurrer and plea in bar, reasoning that a school teacher is required to report the abuse of any child, even one with whom the teacher has no relationship at all. According to the trial court, to prove a violation of OCGA § 19-7-5 in this case, the State would only be required to prove: (1) that [May] was a teacher, (2) that [May] knew or suspected one or more instances of child abuse as defined in OCGA § 19-7-5, (3) that [May] failed to report the abuse, and (4) that the crime occurred in Cherokee County. In the alternative, the trial court reasoned that, even if a relationship with the child were required, proof that May had taught P....
...4 of Appeals denied that application in an unreported order, and May then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. We granted the petition to consider whether the obligation to report abuse under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) extends to all children or instead is limited to children to whom the reporter has a duty to attend.7 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the obligation is limited, and school teachers and other reporters only have an o...
...the abuse of children to whom they attend in connection with the profession, occupation, employment, or volunteer work by which they are identified in subparagraphs (c) (1) (A)-(O) as a mandatory reporter. Our inquiry into the scope of the obligation under OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) begins, of course, with the words of that provision....
...just 7 When we granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, we specifically directed the parties to address this issue in their briefs. We also asked the parties to address another issue, whether the willfulness element of OCGA § 19-7-5 (h) requires proof that the accused acted with an evil purpose or with knowledge of her legal duty to report....
...anner in which a report must be made. In general, a reporter must report directly “to a child welfare agency providing protective services . . . or, in the absence of such agency, to an appropriate police authority or district attorney.” OCGA § 19-7-5 (e)....
...e a report to be made in accordance with this Code section. An employee or volunteer who makes a report to the person designated pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to have fully complied with this subsection. . . . OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2) (emphasis supplied)....
...To be sure, we must consider whether the statutory reference to a causal link between attending to a child and the obligation to make a report reasonably 8 Such a limitation would be, of course, consistent with the identification of mandatory reporters in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (A)-(O), all of whom are identified by reference to a profession, an occupation, employment, or volunteer work in the course of which one reasonably might be expected to attend to children. 8 might be read in another way, one that does not presuppose that the obligation is limited in all cases to children to whom the reporter attends. According to OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1), the obligation arises only when a mandatory reporter “ha[s] reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused,” and attending to a child is perhaps the most common way in which a mandatory reporter might come to have cause for such a belief....
...d it makes reports more likely to be directed to the appropriate agency. Doubt among the employees and volunteers of a facility about the proper procedure by which a 9 Consider “hospital personnel,” who are identified in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) (B) as mandatory reporters....
...volunteer, and by channeling a report through management, the opportunity exists for management to supplement the report of an employee or volunteer with additional pertinent information, something that the statute itself contemplates explicitly. See OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2) (although “the person in charge of the facility, or the designated delegate thereof,” may not suppress or alter “the information provided by the reporter,” such person “may provide any additional, relevant, and necessar...
...employees and volunteers at institutional facilities. Consequently, paragraph (c) (2) is most reasonably understood, we think, to presuppose that the obligation to make a report is limited to children to whom the reporter attends. The statutory history of OCGA § 19-7-5 also suggests that the obligation is most reasonably understood in this way....
...From that omission, one reasonably might conclude that the General Assembly meant to lift the limitation, but for another provision of the 1974 version of the statute that presupposed — in much the same way as the modern 13 version of OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (2), but even more clearly — that the obligation still was limited to children to whom the mandatory reporter attends: Any physician[,] licensed osteopathic physician, intern, resident, dentist, podiatrist, public...
...The general rule, however, does not always apply when one has undertaken a special relationship with the person exposed to such injury. See, e.g., City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26, 28 (1) (426 SE2d 861) (1993) (duty of municipality to provide police protection). Insofar as the purpose of OCGA § 19-7-5 is to protect abused children from further abuse, see OCGA § 19-7-5 (a), understanding the obligation to report as one limited to children to 18 whom the mandatory reporter attends is consistent with the general approach of the common law. In this Court, the State concedes that the obligation to report is limited and that the reference in OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) to “a child” does not mean literally “any child.” But unlike May, the State fails to point to a meaningful limitation that is grounded in the text, structure, history, and the law in the background of the statute....
...515, 527 (2) (b) (712 SE2d 838) (2011), but we note that if it were applied here, it would lead us to the same conclusion. We also do not rely in this case upon the canon of constitutional doubt, see id. at 521-522 (2) (b), notwithstanding that OCGA § 19-7-5 may invite, as we have said before, “serious constitutional inquiry.” Gladson v....
Copy

In Interest of AVB, 482 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. 1997).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 3, 1997 | 267 Ga. 728, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 691

...ming A.V.B. has been "abused," although the assertions raised by GAO fall far short of the legal definition of abuse, either in the criminal or civil context. See, e.g., OCGA § 16-5-70 (cruelty to children); OCGA § 16-6-4 (child molestation); OCGA § 19-7-5(b)(3) (defining child abuse for purposes of terminating parental rights)....