The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s deprivation order, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported it. The child’s mother was the primary caretaker because the father worked overtime; the mother claimed that the child had 34 types of seizure disorders, 10-12 deadly allergies and was unable to bring books home from school or read more than 10 books per year; the mother interfered and refused to cooperate with efforts to verify the child’s medical conditions; and the father acknowledged that, if he was awarded custody, he would continue to work, allowing the juvenile court to conclude that the mother would continue as the child’s primary caretaker.

In the Interest of A. L., A11A1851, (02/01/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 10, 2012

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Robert W. Leavenworth’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against his daughter’s maternal grandparents after the juvenile court dismissed the grandparents’ deprivation action against him, holding that the juvenile court properly concluded that it was not authorized to impose attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14. The juvenile courts have not adopted O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14, there is no implicit attorneys’ fee award for frivolous litigation in the Juvenile Court Code, and English v. Milby, 233 Ga. 7 (1974), holds that the Civil Practice Act does not apply to juvenile courts.

In the Interest of T. M. M. L., A11A 1589 (01/24/12)

Fulton County Daily Report, February 3, 2012

A divided whole Court of Appeals reversed the superior court’s grant of permanent custody of A. L., whose parents are deceased, to Shannon and Michael Ertters, A.L.’s aunt and uncle, holding that the court erred in giving custody to the Ertterses when a juvenile court’s prior order granting long-term custody to Denise Dunbar, A. L.’s grandmother, was unchallenged and still in effect. The juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction over the matter under OCGA § 15-11-28 (a) (1) (C), its long-term custody order remained in effect, and thus the superior court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. McFadden, J., joined by Barnes, P.J, and Mikell, J., dissented, noting that the majority correctly stated that a superior court has jurisdiction over a petition for permanent child custody, and a juvenile court cannot grant permanent custody absent a transfer order from the superior court. Because no transfer was involved here, the juvenile court could not grant permanent custody, but under the majority’s holding the superior court could not exercise authority over the matter either. No relevant authority supported the result that no court may exercise jurisdiction to consider a petition for permanent custody, which would result in a final adjudication of rights, while the long-term custody order, which was not set to expire until A. L. turned 18, was in effect.

Dunbar V. Ertter, A11A0933 (11/8/11)

Fulton County Daily Report, December 2, 2011

Order of ajudication and grant of custody to paternal grandparents REVERSED AND VACATED  as juvenile court erred in granting service by publication on childen’s mother; paternal grandparents had available communication channels through which they could have notified mother of hearing, but failed to do so, and juvenile court also failed to place any burden on paternal grandparents to determine what notice they had given her; juvenile court lacked personal jurisdiction over mother based on its improper grant of service by publication and erred in failing to set aside its ajuduication order when mother’s physical location was known and no one attempted to personally serve her.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/23/2009)

Taylor v. Padgett, A09A1384 (10/06/09), 09 FCDR 3247

Attorneys:  Shawn D. Bible, John S. Husser

Judges:  J Michael Giglio, Catoosa Juvenile Court; Miller, Andrews, Barnes, Georgia Court of Appeals

GA  juvenile courts lack jurisdiction over the a matter granting temporary custody of a child to a third party, if the deprivation petition is a disguised custody matter filed by the 3^rd party, where a third party specifically asked a juvenile court to remove the child from his mother’s custody and place him in their custody instead.

Also a petition does not a contain valid allegation of present deprivation if it focuses largely upon allegation of past deprivation and potential future deprivation related to mother’s drug use.

In the Interest of C.L.C.;  A09A0798 (08/18/09)

Judges:  Ben Miller / Spalding Juvenile Court; Phipps; Smith; Bernes.

For more information contact: CJ Remboldt

A GA juvenile court’s denial of mother’s request for a termination hearing transcript to be used in her appeal is deemed harmless because a transcript is not required to file the appeal and because the transcript and entire record is available for appellate review.

If a juvenile court considers hearsay testimony, and the testimony is not objected to by parent’s Counsel, counsel’s failure to object will not constitute reversible error if other evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings and conclusion.

In the Interest of D.R., A09A0622 (07/07/09)

Judges:  Vincent Crawford, Dekalb Juvenile Court.  Barnes, Miller, Andrews.

For more information contact:  CJ Remboldt