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

O.C.G.A. § 30-5-2 (2019)

Legislative purpose

✓ 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

The purpose of this chapter is to provide protective services for abused, neglected, or exploited disabled adults and elder persons. It is not the purpose of this chapter to place restrictions upon the personal liberty of disabled adults or elder persons, but this chapter should be liberally construed to assure the availability of protective services to all disabled adults and elder persons in need of them.

History

(Ga. L. 1981, p. 1320, § 2; Ga. L. 1997, p. 700, § 2.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Rights of persons residing in long-term care facilities generally, § 31-8-100 et seq. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construction of O.C.G.A. § 30-5-8. - Trial court erred when the court denied the defendant’s motion to quash the count of an indictment charging the defendant with exploitation of a disabled adult in violation of the Disabled Adults and Elder Persons Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 30-5-1 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 30-5-8, because the legislature did not intend for § 30-5-8(a) to apply to sexual acts such as that alleged in the indictment; the most reasonable construction of § 30-5-8(a) is that the legislature did not intend for the statute to apply to sexual acts because the

legislature intended for § 30-5-8 to apply only to specifically defined non-sexual acts, and the statute gradually increased the penalties for these non-sexual acts in response to a perceived need to protect disabled persons from ‘‘abuse,’’ ‘‘neglect,’’ and ‘‘exploitation’’ as defined by the Act, O.C.G.A. § 30-5-3. Smith v. State, 311 Ga. App. 757, 717 S.E.2d 280 (2011). No application to two-party financial transactions. - Court was unconvinced that the Disabled Adults and Elder Persons Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 30-5-1 et seq., was designed to apply to

a two-party financial transaction, which served as the basis of the creditors’ claim. Thompson v. Hornyak (In re Hornyak),

No. 08-70254-MGD; No. 08-09048; No. 10-09002, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1419 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2010).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Smith v. State, 717 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. State, 717 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “This is not surprising given that the stated purpose of the Act is “to provide protective services for abused, neglected, or exploited disabled adults and elder persons,” OCGA § 30-5-2, and that nothing in the statute’s definitions of these terms supports the conclusion that it…”
Est. of Dr. John Ellis, Jr. v. Am. Advisors Grp., Inc. (11th Cir. 2023). “The Disabled Adults and Elder Persons Protection Act aims “to provide protective services for abused, neglected, or exploited disabled adults and elder persons,” O.C.G.A. § 30-5-2, and to that end requires certain persons to report a need for protective ser- vices, id.”
Gobin (S.D. Ind. 2026). “" Ga. Code Ann. § 30-5-2 . This law does not create a private right of action.”
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.