Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Failure to explain reason for selection of county guardian.

- Probate court, when selecting a new guardian for appellant, erred in failing to consider appellant's next of kin; because the hearing was not recorded, and because the order failed to explain the reason the probate court selected the county guardian as the new guardian, the record supported appellant's argument that the probate court failed to consider the statutory preferences of former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2(c) in naming a new guardian. In re Phillips, No. A02A2368, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Oct. 9, 2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2).

Court's order amounted to an abuse of discretion requiring remand as the order failed to give the mother a reasonable opportunity to meet the court's requirements for bond, before passing the mother over in favor of the county guardian, and implicitly found that the mother was unavailable to serve as guardian. In re Estate of Taylor, 270 Ga. App. 807, 608 S.E.2d 299 (2004).

Cited in Twitty v. Akers, 218 Ga. App. 467, 462 S.E.2d 418 (1995); Gary v. Weiner, 233 Ga. App. 284, 503 S.E.2d 898 (1998).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, §§ 24 et seq., 46 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 57 C.J.S., Mental Health, § 135 et seq.