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

O.C.G.A. § 39-4-1 (2019)

‘‘Appropriate public authority’’ defined

✓ 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

As used in Article III of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, the term ‘‘appropriate public authorities’’ means, with reference to this state, the Department of Human Services. The department shall receive and act with reference to notices required by said Article III.

History

Ga. L. 1977, p. 578, § 3; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 2-2/HB 228.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in In re H.C.S., 170 Ga. App. 551, 318 S.E.2d 59 (1984); H.C.S. v. Grebel, 253 Ga. 404, 321 S.E.2d 321 (1984); H.C.S. v. Grebel, 172 Ga. App. 819, 325 S.E.2d 925

(1984); In the Interest of R.B., 285 Ga. App. 556, 647 S.E.2d 300 (2007); In the Interest of S.R.C.J., 317 Ga. App. 699, 732 S.E.2d 547 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: H. C. S. v. Grebel, 321 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
H. C. S. v. Grebel, 321 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. In contesting the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision, the appellants point out that as nonresidents of Georgia they cannot institute adoption proceedings in the courts of this state.”
In the Interest of R. B., 647 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. The mother’s argument is expressly premised upon DFCS’s custody of the children having expired due to an erroneous extension of the deprivation order.”
In the Interest of S. R. C. J., 732 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “The grandmother argues that the juvenile court considered hearsay; that the juvenile court erred by failing to consider family members for placing the child; that the Department of Family and Children Services failed to comply with certain time limitations in the regulations to…”
In the Interest of F. C., 549 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. In the Interest of V.”
In Re Stroh, 523 S.E.2d 887 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “pending adoption, pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“Interstate Compact”), OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. We agree. (a) As an initial matter, this Court reluctantly affirms the trial court’s determination that OCGA § 19-8-3 (a) (3) requires the denial of…”
In re H. C. S., 170 Ga. App. 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “In a rather convoluted argument, appellees assert that the Superior Court of DeKalb County has jurisdiction because the termination of appellant’s rights is a necessary preliminary step to their eventual institution of adoption proceedings in Colorado, the state of their…”
In Re Hcs, 318 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “In a rather convoluted argument, appellees assert that the Superior Court of DeKalb County has jurisdiction because the termination of appellant's rights is a necessary preliminary step to their eventual institution of adoption proceedings in Colorado, the state of their…”
In Re Fc, 549 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “[18] OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. [19] In the Interest of V.”
In Re Rb, 647 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. The mother's argument is expressly premised upon DFCS's custody of the children having expired due to an erroneous extension of the deprivation order.”
In the Interest Of: S. R. C. J. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “The grandmother argues that the juvenile court considered hearsay; that the juvenile court erred by failing to consider family members for placing the child; that the Department of Family and Children Services failed to comply with certain time limitations in the regulations to…”
H. C. S. v. Grebel, 325 S.E.2d 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 39-4-1 et seq. Decided December 3, 1984.”
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.