In the Interest of J. P

52 Citing cases

  1. In the Interest of S.J

    270 Ga. App. 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 31 times
    Finding of deprivation reversed where, among other things, juvenile court's finding that mother exhibited a medically verifiable deficiency so as to render her unable to provide for her child was not supported by the evidence.

    (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) In the Interest of J.P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997). To authorize even a loss of temporary custody by a child's parents, on the basis of deprivation, the deprivation must be shown to have resulted from unfitness on the part of the parent, that is, either intentional or unintentional misconduct resulting in the abuse or neglect of the child or by what is tantamount to physical or mental incapability to care for the child.

  2. In Interest of J. N

    302 Ga. App. 631 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Indicating that direct appeals are still available from deprivation orders

    Child deprivation proceedings are brought on behalf of the child, focus on the needs of the child, and may include custody orders "best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child." OCGA § 15-11-55 (a); In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997). Although child custody determinations may be necessary in a deprivation proceeding, "the proceeding itself is to determine whether the child is deprived and is not an action brought to decide custody matters."

  3. In the Interest of K. C. H

    571 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 8 times
    Finding younger child dependent after parent lost custody of older child due to sexual abuse by mother’s live-in boyfriend

    " (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 S.E.2d 8) (1997). The record reveals that, following a September 18, 2001 deprivation hearing, six-year-old A.C. and four-year-old J.C., the mother's two children at the time, were placed in the temporary legal custody of the Department based on the juvenile court's finding that A. C. had been molested by the mother's live-in boyfriend.

  4. In the Interest of B. C. P

    493 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times

    That appeal is now consolidated with the direct appeal, which has been ruled to be the proper procedure. See In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 S.E.2d 8) (1997). At the time of the hearing in October 1996, Pennyman was age 25 and her son B. C. P., born January 18, 1994, was over two and one-half.

  5. In re C.C.

    314 Ga. 446 (Ga. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Granting review in appeal from an order denying injunctive relief in dependency proceeding

    The Chandlers timely filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which this Court granted under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j) because they were entitled to a direct appeal of an order denying their motion for injunctive relief in ongoing dependency proceedings. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4) ; In the Interest of J. P. , 267 Ga. 492, 480 S.E.2d 8 (1997). The Chandlers then timely filed a notice of appeal.

  6. Todd v. Todd

    287 Ga. 250 (Ga. 2010)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that “ ‘the court ultimately must decide the custody question based on the best interest of the child’ ”

    In a somewhat similar context, this Court has held that even though a deprivation proceeding necessitates a determination as to child custody, "the proceeding itself is to determine whether the child is deprived and is not an action brought to decide custody matters." In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997). See also In the Interest of J. K, 302 Ga. App. 631 (1) ( 691 SE2d 396) (2010).

  7. Todd v. Todd

    S10A0471 (Ga. Mar. 29, 2010)

    In a somewhat similar context, this Court has held that even though a deprivation proceeding necessitates a determination as to child custody, "the proceeding itself is to determine whether the child is deprived and is not an action brought to decide custody matters." In the Interest of J.P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997). This Court has not previously resolved the issue raised by this direct appeal, but it has interpreted the effective date of the act in question, holding that "the salient date for triggering the change in appellate procedure . . . is the time the legal action is filed, not the date that an order sought to be appealed in such action is issued."

  8. In the Interest of I.S

    278 Ga. 859 (Ga. 2005)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that, notwithstanding OCGA § 5–6–34(d), “[p]arties are foreclosed from subsequently challenging the conclusive effect of a deprivation order ... when the order has been reviewed on appeal and the challenged portion of the order either was or could have been considered by the appellate court”

    At that time the court entered an order of disposition permitting the infants to remain with their parents (hereinafter "appellants"), subject to conditions and limitations prescribed by the court, including supervision by the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). See OCGA § 15-11-55 (a) (1). Although this order constituted a final order that could be directly appealed, see In the Interest of J.P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8) (1997) and Sanchez v. Walker County Dept. of Family c. Svcs., 235 Ga. 817 ( 221 SE2d 589) (1976), appellants did not appeal the ruling. Nor did they file a motion for new trial, see In the Interest of T.A.W., 265 Ga. 106 ( 454 SE2d 134) (1995), or a motion pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-40 to modify or vacate the juvenile court's order.

  9. In the Interest of A.V.B

    267 Ga. 728 (Ga. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    In that case we held that appeals from final orders in deprivation cases are directly appealable and are not subject to the discretionary appeal procedure because deprivation cases under Title 15 are neither child custody cases nor domestic relations cases under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35. 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 S.E.2d 8) (1997).Judgment affirmed.

  10. In re C. L.

    No. A23D0276 (Ga. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2023)

    Because a direct appeal will lie from an order within a dependency proceeding, this Court will grant a timely-filed discretionary application from a dependency finding. See In the Interest of J. P., 267 Ga. 492, 493 (480 S.E.2d 8) (1997); In the Interest of S. J., 270 Ga.App. 598, 608 (1) (a), (b) (607 S.E.2d 225) (2004); see OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed.