In Re CREECH

228 S.E.2d 198, 139 Ga. App. 210, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1740
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 2, 1976
Docket52286
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 198 (In Re CREECH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re CREECH, 228 S.E.2d 198, 139 Ga. App. 210, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

This is an appeal by a mother from a ruling adverse to her by the juvenile court wherein she sought to *211 terminate the parental rights of her former husband to their three-year-old son. As the father’s whereabouts were unknown, his interests were represented by a guardian ad litem under court appointment. Held:

Submitted June 7, 1976 Decided July 2, 1976. Richard A. Rice, for appellant. Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Tim Carssow, for appellee.

1. "The court by order may terminate the parental rights of a parent with respect to his child if: (1) the parent has abandoned the child; (2) the child is a deprived child and the court finds that the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied and that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. . Code Ann. § 24A-3201 (a).

2. The evidence did not require a finding that the father abandoned his child (Gray v. Sweat, 125 Ga. App. 797 (189 SE2d 87)), or that the child was a deprived child. Code Ann. § 24A-401 (h).

3. The primary consideration in a proceeding to terminate parental rights is the welfare of the child. In re Levi, 131 Ga. App. 348 (206 SE2d 82); Elrod v. Hall County Dept. of Family & Children Services, 136 Ga. App. 251 (220 SE2d 726). In determining how the interest of the child is best served, the juvenile court is vested with a broad discretion which will not be controlled in the absence of manifest abuse. See Yde v. Yde, 231 Ga. 506 (202 SE2d 423). We find no abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In the Interest of R. A.
486 S.E.2d 363 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
In the Interest of R. U.
477 S.E.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
In re S. G. T.
333 S.E.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
In Re SGT
333 S.E.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Painter v. Barkley
276 S.E.2d 651 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Avera v. Rainwater
256 S.E.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Wynn v. Department of Human Resources
254 S.E.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Childers v. Clayton County Department of Family & Children Services
250 S.E.2d 564 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
In the Interest Of: A. A. G.
246 S.E.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Banks v. Department of Human Resources
233 S.E.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 S.E.2d 198, 139 Ga. App. 210, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-creech-gactapp-1976.