Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re M.K

288 Ga. App. 71 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re M.K

14 Citing cases

  1. Neill v. Brannon

    738 S.E.2d 724 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the biological father abandoned his opportunity interest in a parent-child relationship, and explaining that "even though [he] did not learn that he was definitely the child's father until the child was one year old, he was aware of the possibility that he could be the biological father before the child was born and, to remove any doubts, he could have filed a legitimation petition right after her birth and sought court-ordered genetic testing"

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of M.K., 288 Ga.App. 71, 74(2), 653 S.E.2d 354 (2007). As our Supreme Court has found, a biological father is afforded an opportunity to develop a relationship with his offspring. If the father grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development.

  2. Neill v. Brannon

    A12A2560 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2013)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71, 74 (2) (653 SE2d 354) (2007). As our Supreme Court has found, a biological father is afforded an opportunity to develop a relationship with his offspring. If the father grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development.

  3. In the Interest of T S

    310 Ga. App. 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Finding sufficient evidence of deprivation where mother, who was in anger management counseling, twice previously had injured children, and psychologist working with mother testified that it was unwise to return children to her until she sought further counseling

    OCGA § 15-11-94 (b) (4) (B) (iv)-(v).In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71, 71 (1) ( 653 SE2d 354) (2007) (citation omitted).In the Interest of T. W., 297 Ga. App. at 887 (citation and punctuation omitted).

  4. In the Interest of V.H

    708 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71 (1) ( 653 SE2d 354) (2007). See also OCGA § 15-11-2 (8) (A).

  5. Ernst v. Snow

    305 Ga. App. 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a petition to legitimate when no witnesses were sworn and no admissible evidence regarding the child's best interest was offered

    Then, depending on the nature of the putative father's relationship with the child and other surrounding circumstances, the standard for evaluating whether legitimation is appropriate is either a test of his fitness as a parent or the best interest of the child.In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71, 74 (2) ( 653 SE2d 354) (2007). "In making this determination, the court must examine the benefits that might flow to the child if she were legitimated and to consider the legal consequences of the grant of the petition."

  6. In re K. R.

    367 Ga. App. 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    346 Ga. App. at 259-62 (1), 816 S.E.2d 132 (holding that, viewed in the proper light on appeal, clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's ruling that children were dependent when, inter alia , the parent banged one of their heads against a wall, had a history of involvement with DFCS; regularly disciplined the younger children by striking them with a hand or belt so hard it left visible marks; frequently hit the children's heads and slapped their lips; and continued her physically abusive conduct even after her prior involvement with DFCS); Id. at 259-60 (1), 816 S.E.2d 132 (citing the mother's past involvement with DFCS as some evidence supporting the juvenile court's ruling that child was dependent due to emotional and physical abuse); In the Interest of T. A. H. , 310 Ga. App. 93, 95-96 (1), 712 S.E.2d 115 (2011) (finding that a prior unappealed order finding children deprived supported a finding of deprivation in this subsequent case); In the Interest of M. K. , 288 Ga. App. 71, 72-73 (1), 653 S.E.2d 354 (2007) (affirming the juvenile court's ruling that a child was deprived due to physical abuse when, inter alia , the child testified that her mother "hit her [excessively] on a regular basis"); In the Interest of J. B. M. , 284 Ga. App. 480, 484-85 (1), 644 S.E.2d 317 (2007) (affirming the juvenile court's ruling, finding children deprived when, inter alia , the parent was facing criminal charges related to the physical abuse of her children). Cf.In the Interest of C. L. Z. , 283 Ga. App. 247, 248-49, 641 S.E.2d 243 (2007) (reversing a juvenile court's finding that a child was deprived as to her grandmother when there was evidence only of a single, isolated incident in which the grandmother "put her hand on the back of [the child's] head and ‘forcefully’ pushed her, face first, into the side panel of the vehicle")

  7. In re A.S.

    318 Ga. App. 457 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of the findings of a prior contempt proceeding in a subsequent action between the parties

    This court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that a child was deprived, and whether, under the circumstances, the court properly awarded temporary custody of the child to someone other than the parent. In the Interest of M.K., 288 Ga.App. 71, 71(1), 653 S.E.2d 354 (2007). “This Court neither weighs the evidence nor determines the credibility of witnesses.

  8. In Interest of S. B.

    718 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming a deprivation determination as to all four of the parents’ children on grounds that the father had molested two of them and the mother had done nothing to stop the abuse despite knowing of it

    4. In the Interest of M.K., 288 Ga.App. 71, 71(1), 653 S.E.2d 354 (2007) (citation omitted). 5. SeeIn the Interest of A.A., 293 Ga.App. 471, 474(1), 667 S.E.2d 641 (2008) (holding that a parent may plead the Fifth Amendment in juvenile proceedings, but if a parent does so, the trial court may infer that a truthful answer would be harmful); In the Interest of M.V., 253 Ga.App. 669, 672, 560 S.E.2d 125 (2002) (same).

  9. In re Interest of J. H

    310 Ga. App. 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71 (1) ( 653 SE2d 354) (2007). See also OCGA § 15-11-2 (8) (A).

  10. In re Interest

    706 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    " The evidence that the father physically abused R. C. H., sexually abused R. E. H., and neglected the children's hygiene was sufficient to meet this standard.In the Interest of M. K., 288 Ga. App. 71, 73 (1) ( 653 SE2d 354) (2007). (Punctuation omitted.)