A GA Superior Court has jurisdiction over the temporary award of custody of a child to grandparents if complaint was not in nature of a deprivation petition and does not allege they should be granted permanent custody of the child because the child is deprived.
Even if an earlier petition is filed by DFACS and rejected by Juvenile court, if there is no Superior Court order transferring petition to juvenile court , jurisdiction obtained during original deprivation proceeding cannot serve to retain jurisdiction in juvenile court.
If there is no trial transcript the trial court’s remaining rulings are presumed correct.
Wiepert v. Stover, A09A0197 (07/02/09)
For more information contact: CJ Remboldt
September 18th, 2010 on 9:24 am
Due to protracted litigation, the Wieperts have refrained from public comment. As litigation has now concluded, please add information for our public’s enrichment.
Proceedings were concluded during August, 2010 and a Final Order was signed and entered by Judge Brian House of the Superior Court of Walker County, GA on September 1, 2010.
The Wieperts were not and have not served a copy of said Final Order (as of this date). They did, however, obtain a copy on September 10th upon learning about said order third hand.
It should be particularly noted that the Appeals Court did not receive a COMPLETE copy of the records from the Walker County Superior Court Clerk (as required by law). The lack of said documents included various pleadings, documents and motions which explain why the Appeals Court indicated the issues had never been properly raised.
In fact, said motions and documents had been filed in both the Walker County Juvenile Court and Walker County Superior Court by counsel for the Wieperts in a timely manner.
Further, due to said lack of documentation, the Appeals Court admittedly was confused and definitely was not aware of the following:
A) How Walker County, GA Department of Family & Children’s Services obtained temporary custody of the child from the Wieperts absent legitimate cause;
B) It was discovered during alleged abuse proceedings (initiated by the Stovers) that Walker County Department of Family & Children’s Services had specific reports and documentation indicating no child abuse occurred prior to removal of the child and did not obtain the Court’s permission to remove the child until several days after the fact (nunc pro tunc);
C) The Wieperts had been awarded custody of the child by the Superior Court in a separate and pendant case in the Superior Court of Walker County and had resided with the Wieperts from age 6 months until 23 months;
D) The Superior Court of Walker County was not notified by Walker County Department of Family and Children’s Services or the Stovers’ counsel there were other parties to the case at the time of the ex-parte hearing;
E) Others parties to the case were not notified of said hearing, including the Guardian Ad Litem;
F) The Walker County Superiod Court was not notified at the ex-parte hearing that an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled in the Walker County Juvenile Court the morning immediately following said hearing;
G) Walker County Department of Family and Children’s Services had temporary custody of the child due to the above mentioned pending Juvenile Court proceedings and was acting independently of and without notice to or authorization of the Juvenile Court;
H) Due to the ex-parte order being granted, no adjudicatory hearing was ever held to dispose of the deprivation petition in the Juvenile Court nor the Walker County Superior Court;
I) On the date the Appeal was filed, the Wieperts had not been afforded any opportunity to be heard on the various Motions nor to present evidence and witnesses on their behalf; and finally
J) The Stover’s original petition in the ex-parte hearing “specifically” alleged deprivation in that the child was being held in foster care yet failed to inform the court of the ongoing proceedings in the Juvenile Court.
The Wieperts did not have adequate resources to go against the unlimited coffers of a government funded agency who profited by keeping the child in foster care when several family members were available to care for her prior to removal.
Thanking you in advance for your kind inclusion of this information to clarify the record, I am sincerely,
Carol E. Wiepert, Appellant
Chickamauga, GA