Contents of Social Study

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Courts
  4. Juvenile Code
  5. Dependency Proceedings
  6. Predisposition Social Studies
  7. Contents of Social Study

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

Each social study shall include, but not be limited to, a factual discussion of each of the following subjects:

  1. What plan, if any, for the return of the child adjudicated to be a dependent child to his or her parent and for achieving legal permanency for such child if efforts to reunify fail is recommended to the court;
  2. Whether the best interests of the child will be served by granting reasonable visitation rights to his or her other relatives in order to maintain and strengthen the child adjudicated to be a dependent child's family relationships;
  3. Whether the child adjudicated to be a dependent child has siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and, if so:
    1. The nature of the relationship between such child and his or her siblings;
    2. Whether the siblings were raised together in the same home and whether the siblings have shared significant common experiences or have existing close and strong bonds;
    3. Whether the child adjudicated to be a dependent child expresses a desire to visit or live with his or her siblings and whether ongoing contact is in such child's best interests;
    4. The appropriateness of developing or maintaining sibling relationships;
    5. If siblings are not placed together in the same home, why the siblings are not placed together and what efforts are being made to place siblings together or why those efforts are not appropriate;
    6. If siblings are not placed together, the frequency and nature of the visits between siblings; and
    7. The impact of the sibling relationship on the child adjudicated to be a dependent child's placement and planning for legal permanence;
  4. The appropriateness of any placement with a relative of the child adjudicated to be a dependent child; and
  5. Whether a caregiver desires and is willing to provide legal permanency for a child adjudicated to be a dependent child if reunification is unsuccessful.

(Code 1981, §15-11-191, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 209 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 28.

ALR.

- Defense of infancy in juvenile delinquency proceedings, 83 A.L.R.4th 1135.

PART 10 FAMILY REUNIFICATION DETERMINATION

Law reviews.

- For article, "An Outline of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction with Focus on Child Custody," see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 275 (1973).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 24A-2701, pre-2000 Code Section 15-11-41, and pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-58, which were subsequently repealed but were succeeded by provisions in this part, are included in the annotations for this part. See the Editor's notes at the beginning of the chapter.

Jurisdiction.

- Superior court properly declined jurisdiction in a custody action brought by grandparents because once a juvenile court took jurisdiction of a deprivation action concerning the child and, later, a termination action of parental rights, the court took jurisdiction of the entire case of the minor child including the issues of disposition and custody. Segars v. State, 309 Ga. App. 732, 710 S.E.2d 916 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58).

Foster children.

- Former O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-13 and15-11-58 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2,15-11-30,15-11-134, and15-11-200 et seq.), and O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690.1, and49-5-12 were not too vague and amorphous to be enforced by the judiciary and impose specific duties on the state defendants; thus, the federal regulatory scheme embodied in the CSFR process did not relieve the state defendants of the defendants obligation to fulfill the defendants statutory duties to the foster children, nor did the former statute provide a legal excuse for the defendants failure to do so. Kenny A. v. Perdue, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58).

No equal protection violation.

- Treating deprived children who were placed in the legal custody of the Department of Families and Children Services because there was no relative committed to the child who was available for immediate placement differently from deprived children who did have a committed parent or guardian available for immediate placement did not violate the equal protection clause or Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. II. as the classes were not similarly situated and the laws were rationally related to the goal of minimizing government intervention while ensuring that children were reared in a familial environment. In the Interest of A.N., 281 Ga. 58, 636 S.E.2d 496 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58).

Temporary custody and visitation rights.

- Juvenile court had jurisdiction to modify an order granting temporary custody of a deprived child to the Department of Family and Children Services and to permit visitation by parents who filed a petition for visitation rights four months after the custody order. In re K.B., 188 Ga. App. 199, 372 S.E.2d 476 (1988) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-41).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants, § 50. 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children, §§ 56 et seq., 110 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 224 et seq. 67A C.J.S., Parent and Child, §§ 38 et seq., 63 et seq., 73 et seq., 90 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Juvenile Court Act (U.L.A.) § 36.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.